The Supreme Court on Thursday strongly criticised a senior Maharashtra Law Department official over his conduct during proceedings before the Bombay High Court, observing that even senior government officials cannot raise their voice in court.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta refused to halt the contempt proceedings initiated against Dilip S. Ghumare, Secretary and Senior Legal Advisor to Maharashtra's Law Department. However, the bench directed that the High Court should not pronounce its final decision in the contempt matter for now.

The Supreme Court also advised Ghumare to appear before the Bombay High Court and offer an unconditional apology.

Supreme Court questions Ghumare's conduct

During the hearing, the bench expressed displeasure over Ghumare's alleged conduct and questioned his assertion that the Bombay High Court was responsible for the delay in filling 179 sanctioned posts in fast-track courts across Maharashtra.

The judges said a government official could not attribute the failure to fill sanctioned judicial posts to the court and urged Ghumare to reconsider his remarks.

The bench described the conduct as serious indiscipline and said no senior bureaucrat should behave in such a manner during court proceedings.

The judges suggested that Ghumare return to the High Court and tender an unconditional apology, leaving it to the High Court to consider his request.

How the dispute began

The matter originated from a 2013 public interest litigation filed by RTI activist Vihar Durve concerning the establishment and staffing of fast-track courts dealing with cases involving crimes against women and minor girls.

The Bombay High Court had questioned an affidavit submitted by Ghumare on August 4, finding the information provided unsatisfactory.

The court particularly sought clarification regarding an additional affidavit that stated 179 new posts had been created.

When the additional public prosecutor was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation during the hearing, the High Court asked Ghumare to furnish details and clarify who had prepared the affidavit.

According to the High Court's account, Ghumare responded in an aggressive and loud manner and allegedly blamed the court for the failure to fill the sanctioned positions.

In an order dated September 1, the High Court characterised the conduct as an unwarranted attack on the dignity and authority of the judiciary and initiated contempt proceedings against the official.

Ghumare's lawyer seeks relief

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing Ghumare before the Supreme Court, sought a stay on the contempt proceedings.

Singh told the bench that Ghumare had already expressed regret and had subsequently applied for voluntary retirement.

The lawyer also disputed the description of the incident, arguing that the High Court order did not conclusively state that Ghumare had shouted, but described his conduct as being “bordering on shouting.”

According to Singh, Ghumare had merely pointed out that around 1,100 fast-track court posts had been sanctioned, while only about 385 had been filled. He argued that the High Court itself should have taken steps to initiate the appointment process.

The Supreme Court, however, examined the contents of Ghumare's affidavit and observed that it appeared to place responsibility for the vacancies on the High Court.

The bench ultimately declined to stay the contempt proceedings, while restraining the Bombay High Court from delivering its judgment in the matter at this stage.