Supreme Court Rebukes Maharashtra Law Official Over Courtroom Conduct

The Supreme Court on Thursday strongly criticised a senior official of the Maharashtra law department for his conduct during a hearing in the Bombay High Court, saying no officer can presume to raise his voice at judges.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta pulled up Dilip S. Ghumare, secretary and senior legal advisor in the state law department, over his behaviour in the High Court. The bench made clear its displeasure at what it described as gross indiscipline.

While the court declined to stay the contempt proceedings initiated against Ghumare, it restrained the Bombay High Court from pronouncing its verdict in the matter for the time being.

The judges questioned Ghumare over his submission that the High Court itself was to blame for the failure to fill 179 sanctioned fast-track court posts in Maharashtra. The bench told him he should repent for his words, observing that a judicial officer has no business telling the court that it is responsible for unfilled posts.

The court advised Ghumare to return to the Bombay High Court and tender an unconditional apology, adding that the High Court should consider his request.

The dispute traces back to a public interest litigation filed in 2013 by RTI activist Vihar Durve, concerning the creation of and appointments to fast-track courts meant to hear cases related to crimes against women and minor girls. The Bombay High Court found an affidavit filed by Ghumare on August 4 unsatisfactory and sought clarity on a claim in an additional affidavit that 179 new positions had been created.

When the additional public prosecutor could not give a clear answer, the court asked Ghumare for information about the affidavit and who had prepared it. According to the High Court, instead of replying, he spoke aggressively and loudly, to the point of shouting, and blamed the court for the failure to fill the 179 posts.

In its September 1 order, the High Court treated his behaviour as a deliberate and unwarranted attack on the dignity and authority of the court and ordered contempt proceedings against him.

Appearing for Ghumare in the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh sought a stay on those proceedings. He said Ghumare had already apologised and had since applied for voluntary retirement. He also argued that the High Court order did not state that Ghumare had actually shouted, but described his conduct as bordering on shouting.

Singh further submitted that Ghumare had only pointed out that roughly 1,100 posts had been sanctioned while just 385 had been filled, and that the High Court ought to have begun the appointment process. The Supreme Court, referring to the affidavit, said it appeared to place blame on the High Court for the lack of appointments.