Judicial officer cannot shout at judges, blame HC: Supreme Court

A judicial officer cannot raise his voice against judges or tell a court that it was responsible for its own failure to fill sanctioned posts, the Supreme Court said on Thursday, as it declined to stay criminal contempt proceedings against a senior Maharashtra judicial officer accused of adopting an aggressive, high-pitched tone “bordering to shouting” and blaming the Bombay high court administration during court proceedings.The Supreme Court bench also questioned Dilip S Ghumare’s justification for his conduct. (File photo)A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, however, restrained the Bombay high court from taking a final decision in the contempt proceedings pending before it. The bench issued notice on the officer’s plea and listed the matter for September 28, allowing the high court to continue with the proceedings in the meantime.“A judicial officer cannot shout against the judges in a court,” the bench said during the hearing.The bench was hearing a plea by Dilip S Ghumare, secretary and senior legal adviser in Maharashtra’s Department of Law and Judiciary, challenging the Bombay high court’s September 1 order initiating contempt proceedings against him.Also Read: SC allows withdrawal of 65 Covid-19 era cases against sitting, former Himachal lawmakersThe Supreme Court bench also questioned Ghumare’s justification for his conduct. “A judicial officer has no business to tell a court that it is the court which is responsible for not filling up the posts. He should repent for his words. This is gross indiscipline. Even a senior bureaucrat does not dare to raise his voice in the court,” it said.The bench advised Ghumare to return to the high court and tender an unconditional apology. “Our advice to you is that you should go back to the high court and seek an unconditional apology. Let the high court consider your request,” it said.Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Ghumare, sought a stay of the high court proceedings, saying his client had already tendered an apology and had subsequently sought voluntary retirement. Singh said Ghumare had to serve a three-month notice period and had also been transferred to a Naxalite area, nearly 1,000 km away.Singh also sought a video recording of the proceedings, pointing out that the high court order described Ghumare’s conduct as “bordering on shouting” rather than expressly stating that he had shouted.The Supreme Court, however, said it had also examined Ghumare’s affidavit. “It goes on to suggest that the high court is in error,” the bench observed.Singh argued that Ghumare had merely pointed out that while 1,100 posts were sanctioned, only 385 had been filled and that it was for the high court to process the appointments. The bench responded that there were “difficulties that the high court also has”.The controversy arose during the hearing of a public interest litigation filed in 2013 by RTI activist Vihar Durve. The Bombay high court had found an affidavit filed by Ghumare on August 4 unsatisfactory and sought clarity on an additional affidavit stating that 179 new posts for fast-track courts had been created.When the additional government pleader could not provide a clear answer, the court asked Ghumare, who was present, to point out the relevant averments and questioned him about who had drafted the affidavit.According to the high court, instead of answering, Ghumare “launched into an aggressive, high-pitched tone (bordering to shouting)” and blamed the high court administration, stating that it was responsible for not filling up the 179 posts.The high court described the outburst as an “unwarranted” and “deliberate” assault on its dignity and authority, saying it undermined and attempted to lower the authority of the court and constituted contempt ex facie under Article 215 of the Constitution and Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.It also rejected the proposition that an apology could simply wipe away such conduct, observing that allowing a judicial officer to behave in an “inexcusable” manner in open court and later seek pardon would send a “deeply troubling message” to the public.The high court subsequently issued Ghumare a notice under the Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994, asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. The matter is scheduled for September 11.