The Supreme Court of India has requested a response from the Bombay High Court concerning a plea challenging ongoing contempt of court proceedings against a senior judicial officer from Maharashtra. The officer, Dilip S. Ghumare, is under scrutiny for an alleged outburst during a court session, which led to his transfer to a Naxalite-affected area shortly thereafter.
Background of the Case
The incident in question occurred on September 1, when a bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata at the Bombay High Court was reviewing an affidavit about vacancies in 179 new fast-track court positions. During this session, Ghumare purportedly responded to a query from the court in an aggressive and elevated tone, blaming the High Court administration for the vacancy issue.
The High Court took exception to Ghumare’s conduct, issuing a contempt of court notice against him. The court noted that Ghumare’s behavior was not only aggressive but also undermined the court’s authority, constituting a case of contempt as per Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Supreme Court’s Reaction
Ghumare subsequently approached the Supreme Court to challenge the contempt proceedings. Represented by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, Ghumare contended that he had raised his voice only to be audible, as he was not positioned near a microphone during the hearing. Singh informed the court that Ghumare has since voluntarily retired but is obligated to serve a three-month notice period in the Naxalite area where he was transferred.
Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court bench, composed of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, refused to stay the contempt proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of discipline and decorum, stating, “A judicial officer cannot shout at the High Court. Let him repent. This is gross indiscipline.”
More Read
Controversy Surrounding the Transfer
The transfer of Ghumare to a Naxalite area has raised concerns regarding its timing and implications. Singh argued that such a move sends a negative signal, emphasizing the undue hardship Ghumare faces by having to serve in a distant and volatile region.
The Supreme Court questioned Ghumare’s decision to resign rather than apologize unreservedly. “Why did you resign? If you are so hot-headed, then you are not fit for judicial service,” the court remarked, advising that an unconditional apology would have been the appropriate course of action.
Next Steps
While the Supreme Court has issued a notice on Ghumare’s plea, it has instructed the High Court to refrain from finalizing the contempt proceedings until the Supreme Court hears the matter further on September 28.
More Read
This unfolding legal saga highlights the judiciary’s insistence on maintaining decorum and the serious consequences of actions perceived to undermine court authority.
