Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Rejects Stay on Contempt Proceedings Against Maharashtra Judicial Officer
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event: Supreme Court Declares Outburst “Gross Indiscipline”
On September 10, 2026, a two-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that a judicial officer’s raised voice in court amounted to “gross indiscipline.” The bench declined to stay the criminal contempt proceedings initiated by the Bombay High Court against Dilip S. Ghumare, Secretary and Senior Legal Adviser in Maharashtra’s Department of Law and Judiciary. The Supreme Court also restrained the High Court from issuing a final contempt order and listed the matter for further hearing on September 28.
Background & Context: Vacancy Dispute and Fast-Track Court Posts
The controversy arose during a hearing of a public-interest litigation filed in 2013 by RTI activist Vihar Durve concerning the creation and filling of posts in fast-track courts that handle offences against women and minors. The Bombay High Court had found an affidavit filed by Ghumare on August 4 “unsatisfactory” and, on August 27, sought clarification on an additional affidavit that listed 179 new fast-track-court posts.
Ghumare pointed out that out of 1,100 sanctioned judicial posts, only 385 had been filled, and argued that the High Court should process the remaining appointments.
Data & Statistics
- Sanctioned judicial posts: 1,100
- Posts filled: 385
- New fast-track-court posts: 179
- Transfer distance: approximately 1,000 km to a Naxalite-affected area
- Notice period required: three months
Official Statements & Responses
The bench advised him to return to the High Court and tender an unconditional apology, noting that even senior bureaucrats do not raise their voice in court.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Ghumare, argued that his client had already apologized, had taken voluntary retirement, and was required to serve a three-month notice period in the remote posting. Singh also requested a video recording of the proceedings, contending that the High Court’s description of the conduct as “bordering on shouting” was not an explicit finding of shouting.
The Bombay High Court had described the outburst as an “unwarranted” and “deliberate” assault on its dignity, rejecting the notion that an apology alone could erase such conduct, warning that it would send a “deeply troubling message” to the public.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Nature of the outburst: Some reports state that Ghumare “shouted” at the judges, while others qualify the behavior as “bordering on shouting.”
- Apology acceptance: The High Court refused to accept Ghumare’s apology, whereas the Supreme Court suggested he seek an unconditional apology from the High Court.
No further details have been provided regarding the exact wording of Ghumare’s remarks or any video evidence of the incident.
Verbatim Quotes
- “I have resigned but for 3 months I’ll have to go that naxalite area which is 1,000 kms away. Your lordships should give me liberty to withdraw my resignation also,” — Vikas Singh, senior advocate
What’s Next
The Supreme Court has issued notice on Ghumare’s plea and scheduled a further hearing for September 28. The Bombay High Court’s contempt proceedings are slated to continue, with a hearing set for September 11.
