The Supreme Court on Thursday slammed a senior Maharashtra law department official for “shouting” during a hearing at the Bombay High Court, stating that no officer can dare raise their voice in court.
Reprimanding Dilip S. Ghumare, secretary and senior legal advisor to the state’s law department, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta expressed strong displeasure over his conduct during the hearing in the Bombay High Court. The bench refused to stay the contempt proceedings against him but restrained the Bombay High Court from delivering its verdict.
The court questioned Ghumare over his argument that the High Court was responsible for the failure to fill 179 sanctioned fast-track court posts in Maharashtra, and asked him to repent.
“A judicial officer has no business telling the court that the court is responsible for the failure to fill the posts. He should repent his words. This is gross indiscipline. The bench advised Ghumare to return to the Bombay High Court and tender an unconditional apology. “We advise you to return to the High Court and tender an unconditional apology. What Led To The Controversy?
Even a senior bureaucrat would not dare to raise his voice in court,” the court said. The High Court should consider your request,” it said.
‘Can’t Shout At Judges’: Supreme Court Pulls Up Law Official In Contempt Case
The case concerned the creation of and appointments to positions in fast-track courts for hearing cases linked to crimes against women and minor girls. During the hearing, the additional public prosecutor was unable to provide a clear answer to this question. The court then asked Ghumare to provide information related to the affidavit and asked who had prepared it. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appeared in the Supreme Court on behalf of Ghumare. He sought a stay on the High Court’s contempt proceedings. Singh stated that Ghumare had already apologised and subsequently applied for voluntary retirement. The lawyer claimed the High Court order did not state that Ghumare had actually shouted, but rather described his behaviour as “bordering on shouting.
The controversy erupted during the hearing of a public interest litigation filed by RTI activist Vihar Durve in 2013. The Bombay High Court found Ghumare’s affidavit, filed on August 4, unsatisfactory. Subsequently, the court sought clarification on the claim made in an additional affidavit that 179 new positions had been created. In its September 1 order, the High Court described Ghumare’s behaviour as a deliberate and unwarranted attack on the dignity and authority of the court, ordering contempt proceedings against him. Singh argued that Ghumare had merely stated that approximately 1,100 posts had been sanctioned, but only 385 had been filled.
Instead of answering the question, Ghumare began speaking “aggressively and loudly, to the point of shouting” and blamed the court for the failure to fill the 179 posts, according to the Bombay High Court. He said that the High Court should have initiated the appointment process. The top court referred to Ghumare’s affidavit and said that it appeared to blame the High Court for a lack of appointments.
