Archive · 11 Sep 2026
Supreme Court Rebukes Maharashtra Official in Contempt Proceedings
Dilip S. Ghumare is a Maharashtra law official who had an argument during a court hearing.
The Bombay High Court said he spoke loudly 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 did not actually shout and had already apologized.
The lawyer also said Ghumare was discussing the number of approved and filled posts.
The Supreme Court said officers must not shout at judges or blame the court in this way.
It allowed the contempt case to continue but stopped the High Court from making a final decision until September 28.
The Supreme Court criticized Maharashtra law official Dilip S. Ghumare over an alleged aggressive outburst during a Bombay High Court hearing.
The court refused to stay contempt proceedings but barred the High Court from issuing a final decision until September 28.
The dispute arose over 179 sanctioned fast-track court posts intended for cases involving crimes against women and minor girls.
The Bombay High Court said Ghumare blamed its administration for the failure to fill the posts and ordered contempt proceedings.
Ghumare’s lawyer said he had apologized, sought voluntary retirement, and only cited about 1,100 sanctioned posts and 385 filled posts.
- 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 refused to stay contempt proceedings against Ghumare over his alleged conduct during a Bombay High Court hearing.
- When
- The Supreme Court hearing took place on Thursday, with the next date set for September 28; the Bombay High Court issued its relevant order on September 1.
- Where
- The alleged outburst occurred in the Bombay High Court, while the latest proceedings took place in the Supreme Court.
- Why
- The dispute followed a hearing about 179 sanctioned fast-track court posts and allegations that Ghumare aggressively blamed the High Court for not filling them.
Ghumare’s Position
Bombay High Court’s Position
What was said during the hearing
Ghumare’s Position
Ghumare’s lawyer said he did not shout and had only stated that about 1,100 posts were sanctioned while 385 had been filled. He argued that the High Court should have initiated the appointment process.
Bombay High Court’s Position
The High Court said Ghumare responded in an aggressive, high-pitched tone bordering on shouting and blamed its administration for failing to fill the 179 posts.
Whether the conduct justified contempt proceedings
Ghumare’s Position
Ghumare’s lawyer said the official had already tendered an unconditional apology and argued that the High Court order described conduct 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 that undermined the dignity and authority of the court, leading it to initiate contempt proceedings.
Next legal step
Ghumare’s Position
Ghumare sought a stay of the contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Bombay High Court’s Position
The Supreme Court allowed the High Court proceedings to continue, while directing that no final decision be taken until September 28.
- Official involved
- Dilip S. Ghumare, secretary and senior legal advisor in Maharashtra’s law department
- Supreme Court action
- Refused to stay the contempt proceedings and prevented the Bombay High Court from issuing a final decision until September 28
- Posts at issue
- 179 sanctioned fast-track court posts
- Figures cited by Ghumare’s lawyer
- Approximately 1,100 posts were sanctioned and 385 had been filled
- Original case
- A 2013 public interest litigation filed by RTI activist Vihar Durve
- High Court allegation
- Ghumare used an aggressive, high-pitched tone while blaming the High Court administration for unfilled posts
- Supreme Court advice
- Ghumare was advised to return to the High Court and tender an unconditional apology
