The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 1) issued a contempt notice to Dilip S. Ghumare, Secretary and Senior Legal Advisor, Department of Law and Judiciary, Maharashtra, after observing that he launched into an aggressive, high-pitched tone “bordering to shouting” and blamed the High Court administration during court proceedings.

A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata was hearing an interim application in a PIL concerning judicial appointments in Maharashtra. Ghumare, who is a senior Judicial Officer and was formerly Principal Secretary and R.L.A. to the Law and Judiciary Department, was present in Court.

During the hearing, the bench took note of an affidavit filed by Ghumare, wherein certain averments were made with respect to creation of 179 new Fast Track Courts. However, when the bench asked Ghumare, who was present in the court about the averments made in the affidavit, he was hesitant to respond.

"Observing his hesitation, Justice Khata put to him a straightforward question: who had drafted the Affidavit, and whether it contained the necessary averments in question. Rather than responding to our query, the Deponent launched into an aggressive, high-pitched tone (bordering to shouting) inter alia blaming the High Court administration, apart from other sentences stated that 'the High Court Administration was responsible for not filling up the 179 posts' before a packed Courtroom. We are of the view that, Ghumare's unwarranted outburst and aggressive demeanour, deliberately displayed in open Court in full public view while attempting to justify the stand in his Affidavits, not only scandalised the Court but undermined and attempted to lower its authority, constituting contempt ex facie, as contemplated under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971," the judges recorded.

The bench noted that Ghumare's intemperate outburst constituted a deliberate and unwarranted assault upon the "dignity and authority" of the High Court.

The bench also refused to accept his apology, he tendered through Advocate General Dr Milind Sathe, who was called to the court by the judges in the second session of the hearing.

"Such conduct is manifestly unbecoming of any judicial officer and simply outrageous, falling far below the standard we would expect. It has long been the settled practice of this Court that all litigants, whether in civil or criminal matters, are expected to maintain decorum and respect the sanctity of these proceedings. This expectation is not merely heightened, but becomes imperative, when the person in question is himself a judicial officer. A Judicial Officer cannot exhibit such a behaviour in open court and thereafter expect a pardon through an apology in any manner or form later. To permit this would convey to the public at large a deeply troubling message: that one can commit an otherwise inexcusable act with impunity in open Court and then sheepishly, in a theatrical manner, not meaning a word of it, offer an apology, either through a Senior Counsel or Advocate General to absolve himself of an act which ex facie is contemptuous," the bench remarked.

The judges clearly opined that such a conduct by the officer in open Court, witnessed by all present, was "wholly unpardonable" and cannot be countenanced.

"Ghumare was formerly a Principal Secretary and currently is a Secretary at the Department of Law and Judiciary cannot certainly forget that he is a Judicial Officer and cannot start regarding the Court as utterly insignificant, irrelevant or inconsequential in any manner nor can it be lightly trammeled upon. The post of a Principal Secretary or Secretary at the Department of Law and Judiciary is an important position in the interface between the Judiciary and the Legislature. Regardless of the substance of the dispute, it does not confer on him the privilege to treat this Court with utter disrespect. We therefore issue notice to Ghumare, Secretary and Senior Legal Advisor, Department of Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai, as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for committing the aforesaid act," the bench ordered.

The bench has posted the matter for further hearing on September 11.

Appearance:

Advocates Narayan Bubna and AA Achhra appeared for PIL Petitioner.

Advocate General Dr. Milind Sathe along with Chief Government Pleader Neha Bhide, Additional Government Pleader Priyabhushan Kakade and Assistant Government Pleader VR Raje represented the State.

Case Title: Vihar Shivajirao Durve vs State of Maharashtra (Interim Application 2678 of 2025)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 423

Click Here To Read/Download Order