1 hr ago
Supreme Court Rebukes Maharashtra Law Official Over Contempt
A government law official named Dilip S. Ghumare had an argument during a court hearing.
The Bombay High Court said he spoke aggressively and blamed the court for unfilled fast-track court jobs.
These courts were meant to hear cases involving crimes against women and girls.
The High Court began contempt proceedings, which are used when someone is accused of disrespecting a court.
Ghumare’s lawyer said he had already apologized.
The lawyer also said Ghumare did not actually shout and had only discussed the number of sanctioned and filled posts.
The Supreme Court criticized Ghumare’s conduct and advised him to give the High Court an unconditional apology.
The Supreme Court did not stop the contempt case but prevented the High Court from issuing its verdict for now.
The Supreme Court criticized Maharashtra law official Dilip S. Ghumare for allegedly shouting during a Bombay High Court hearing.
The court refused to stay contempt proceedings against Ghumare but stopped the High Court from delivering its verdict for now.
The dispute concerns 179 sanctioned fast-track court posts, created for cases involving crimes against women and minor girls.
The Bombay High Court said Ghumare aggressively blamed it for the failure to fill the posts and initiated contempt proceedings.
Ghumare’s lawyer said he had apologized, sought voluntary retirement, and had only stated that about 1,100 posts were sanctioned while 385 were filled.
- Who
- The Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, Maharashtra law official Dilip S. Ghumare, and his lawyer Vikas Singh.
- What
- The Supreme Court criticized Ghumare’s conduct and refused to stay contempt proceedings arising from his behavior during a Bombay High Court hearing.
- Where
- The disputed conduct occurred in the Bombay High Court, while the latest hearing took place in the Supreme Court.
- When
- The Supreme Court hearing took place on Thursday; the Bombay High Court’s relevant order was issued on September 1, following an affidavit filed on August 4.
- Why
- The controversy arose after Ghumare allegedly spoke aggressively and blamed the High Court over the failure to fill 179 sanctioned fast-track court posts.
Ghumare’s Position
Bombay High Court’s Position
What Ghumare said during the hearing
Ghumare’s Position
Ghumare’s lawyer said he had only stated that approximately 1,100 posts were sanctioned while 385 had been filled, and argued that the High Court should have initiated the appointment process.
Bombay High Court’s Position
The High Court said Ghumare spoke aggressively and loudly, to the point of shouting, and blamed the court for the failure to fill the posts.
Whether the conduct warranted contempt proceedings
Ghumare’s Position
Ghumare’s lawyer said he had already apologized and argued that the High Court order described his conduct as bordering on shouting rather than expressly stating that he shouted.
Bombay High Court’s Position
The High Court characterized the conduct as a deliberate and unwarranted attack on the dignity and authority of the court and initiated contempt proceedings.
Key facts
- Official involved
- Dilip S. Ghumare, secretary and senior legal advisor to Maharashtra’s law department
- Supreme Court action
- Refused to stay the contempt proceedings and restrained the Bombay High Court from delivering its verdict
- Disputed positions
- The case concerns 179 sanctioned fast-track court posts
- Posts cited by Ghumare’s lawyer
- About 1,100 posts were sanctioned and 385 had been filled
- Original litigation
- A 2013 public interest litigation filed by RTI activist Vihar Durve
- High Court response
- The Bombay High Court ordered contempt proceedings after describing Ghumare’s conduct as an attack on its dignity and authority
- Supreme Court advice
- The court advised Ghumare to return to the High Court and tender an unconditional apology
Quotes
Supreme Court bench
The Supreme Court bench hearing Ghumare's challenge to the contempt proceedings
“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. Even a senior bureaucrat would not dare to raise his voice in court.”
NDTV
“We advise you to return to the High Court and tender an unconditional apology. The High Court should consider your request.”
NDTV
Sources
Related news
Bombay High Court Issues Contempt Notice Over Law Secretary Outburst
Himachal Court Clears Contempt Action Over Corruption Allegation
High Court Issues Contempt Notice to Retired DGP Khurania
Allahabad High Court Orders Fresh Bench in Gonda Contempt Case
Bombay HC Challenges MBMC Over Windsor Project Court Order
Bombay High Court Warns Maharashtra FDA Over Restaurant Bans
Delhi MCD Demolishes 41 Structures, Seals 61 Properties After Collapse
Collegium Recommends Eight Judicial Officers for Delhi High Court
Maharashtra Commission Defends Official Prison Meeting With Abu Salem
Supreme Court Sets Aside Compulsory Retirement, Orders Farewell Ceremony
