उच्चतम न्यायालय ने बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय में न्यायाधीशों पर चिल्लाने वाले वरिष्ठ न्यायिक अधिकारी दिलीप एस घुमारे के खिलाफ जारी आपराधिक अवमानना (criminal contempt) की कार्यवाही पर रोक लगाने से इनकार करते हुए उनके व्यवहार को घोर अनुशासनहीनता करार दिया।
The Supreme Court of India refused to stay criminal contempt proceedings against Dilip S. Ghumare, a senior judicial officer serving as Secretary and Senior Legal Advisor in Maharashtra's Department of Law and Judiciary. The action follows an open-court altercation at the Bombay High Court, during which Ghumare raised his voice at the bench.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued a formal notice on Ghumare’s petition but declined to grant interim relief against the contempt proceedings, remarking that the officer’s behavior amounted to gross indiscipline.
Origin of the Dispute
The controversy stems from proceedings before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal R. Khata. The High Court was evaluating state government affidavits regarding the creation and filling of 179 sanctioned posts across fast-track courts in Maharashtra.
When asked by the bench to clarify specific statements in the filed documents, Ghumare allegedly responded in an aggressive, high-pitched tone bordering on shouting. During his outburst, he openly blamed the High Court administration for failing to fill the vacant posts.
The Bombay High Court initiated ex facie contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The bench observed that:
- The officer’s demeanor scandalized the court and undermined its authority in full public view.
- Offering a post-hoc apology cannot serve as an automatic defense for unpardonable behavior by a judicial officer.
- Maintaining courtroom decorum is imperative, particularly for officers belonging to the judicial cadre.
Following the incident, the state administration transferred Ghumare to a designated Naxalite-affected area located nearly 1,000 kilometers away. Ghumare subsequently tendered an application for voluntary retirement.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Appearing for Ghumare, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh petitioned the Supreme Court to stay the contempt proceedings and grant relief regarding his transfer and retirement status.
- The Defense Counsel’s Submissions:
- Volume vs. Temper: Ghumare was not standing near a courtroom microphone, which required him to raise his voice to be heard.
- Systemic Failure: The officer was attempting to explain that out of 1,100 sanctioned fast-track court posts, only 385 were operational, asserting that processing appointments fell within the purview of the High Court administration.
- Punitive Transfer: Transporting an officer to a remote Naxalite-affected region for his three-month notice period set a problematic precedent.
- The Supreme Court’s Directives:
- Refusal of Relief: The Supreme Court rejected the plea to halt proceedings, observing:
"Let him repent. This is gross indiscipline. A judicial officer cannot shout at the High Court. Even when a senior IAS officer appears before the court, they do not dare raise their voice." - Critique of Resignation: Addressing Ghumare’s decision to resign rather than tender an unconditional apology, the bench noted that a hot-headed disposition rendered an officer unsuitable for judicial service.
- Refusal of Relief: The Supreme Court rejected the plea to halt proceedings, observing:
Current Status and Directions
While refusing to stay the contempt proceedings, the Supreme Court instructed the Bombay High Court not to pronounce a final order in the matter until the top court hears the case again. The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for late September 2026.
Legal Principles Raised
| Legal Dimension | Applicable Provision / Principle | Primary Judicial Observation |
| Power to Punish for Contempt | Article 215, Constitution of India | High Courts possess inherent jurisdiction to punish actions that scandalize or lower the authority of the court. |
| Definition of Criminal Contempt | Sec 2(c), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 | Public outbursts attributing administrative failure to the bench in open court qualify as ex facie contempt. |
| Judicial Decorum | Judicial Conduct Standards | Apologies cannot be used as a routine remedy to erase open-court misconduct by judicial officers. |
Discription: The Supreme Court of India refused to stay criminal contempt proceedings against senior judicial officer Dilip S. Ghumare, who shouted at a Bombay High Court bench during a hearing on fast-track court vacancies. Ghumare openly blamed the High Court administration for unfilled posts, leading Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata to cite him for ex facie contempt for undermining judicial authority.
Following the outburst, Ghumare was transferred to a remote Naxalite-affected area and subsequently tendered his voluntary retirement. A Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta criticized his conduct as gross indiscipline, stating he must repent rather than resign. While declining to halt proceedings, the apex court directed the High Court not to pass a final order pending further review.