The Bombay High Court has formally issued a contempt notice to the Secretary of the Maharashtra Law and Judiciary Department, along with its Senior Legal Advisor, following a highly inappropriate outburst in a crowded courtroom. The official reportedly criticized the court’s administration for the lack of occupied judicial positions, leading to a reaction from the court that deemed the behavior “outrageous” and “unpardonable.”
A division bench, comprising Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Kamal R Khata, described the officer’s “unwarranted outburst” and “aggressive demeanor” as behavior that not only “scandalized the court” but also sought to diminish and challenge its authority in a public setting.
The court identified the actions of Dilip S Ghumare, a former Principal Secretary in the department, as constituting “contempt ex facie” under the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971.
This situation arose during the court’s hearing of a request from activist Vihar Durve regarding the establishment and staffing of fast-track courts intended to address offenses against women and minor girls.
The bench had previously found Ghumare’s affidavits to be “unsatisfactory.” During the proceedings, the judges queried Additional Government Pleader Priyabhushan P Kakade about an affidavit dated August 27 related to the creation of 179 new positions for Fast Track Courts.
When Kakade was unable to provide a satisfactory answer, Justice Khata instructed Ghumare to offer clarification. Instead of doing so, Ghumare reportedly reacted with an aggressive tone, bordering on shouting, and placed blame on the court’s administration, as noted by the bench, which took place in front of a full courtroom.
The bench characterized Ghumare’s conduct as “manifestly unbecoming of any judicial officer,” emphasizing that his statements represented a “deliberate and unwarranted assault upon the dignity and authority” of the court.
The court remarked that regardless of the nature of the dispute, Ghumare did not possess the right to disrespect the court in such a manner.
The bench then sought input from Advocate General Milind Sathe, who indicated he would not defend Ghumare’s behavior but suggested that the court might consider accepting an apology, as Ghumare was present.
The court reiterated that a judicial officer must remember their role and cannot regard the court as “utterly insignificant, irrelevant or inconsequential.”
Moreover, the court dismissed the notion that an apology should automatically mitigate such conduct. “To allow this would send a troubling message to the public, suggesting that one could commit an otherwise inexcusable act in an open court, only to offer a theatrical apology devoid of sincerity,” it stated. The next hearing is scheduled for September 11.
