“Gross impropriety” is how the Bombay High Court has described the conduct of the Chief Justice’s Special Officer, who, it held, misused the former Chief Justice’s name in a directive that stalled trustee appointments to the Shree Saptashrung Nivasini Devi Trust in Nashik.
Mumbai: An administrative communication that had halted the appointment of trustees to the Shree Saptashrung Nivasini Devi Trust in Nashik has been quashed by the Bombay High Court, which held that the Special Officer to the then Chief Justice who issued it acted without lawful authority and misused the Chief Justice’s name [Vishnu Trimbak Warungase and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others].
The petition was filed by participants in the trustee selection process, and a Division Bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Neela Gokhale allowed it. The Bench also set aside the consequential stay order passed by the Nashik Principal District and Sessions Judge.
No note, no proposal
During the hearing, counsel for the High Court administration and for the District Judge conceded that no official note or proposal had ever been placed before the Chief Justice on the subject.
“The impugned communication as issued, being attributed to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, is not supported by the record with the registry.”
The email of March 14
The communication under challenge was an email sent on March 14, 2026 by Special Officer Anju Shende to the Nashik Principal District and Sessions Judge. It directed the immediate withdrawal of a recommended list of five trustees, which had been finalised on March 12 after an interview process. She claimed the directive followed oral instructions from the then Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar in view of a newly promulgated State ordinance.
In the Bench’s words
The Bench questioned what could have led the officer to issue the directive in the Chief Justice’s name.
“We wonder as to what could have prompted the special officer to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice/respondent no. 4, to issue such communication purportedly under the garb of having acted as per the directions of the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice on the administrative side.”
Rejecting the officer’s defence, the Court recorded a clear finding of misuse.
“In fact, in our view, it is a clear case where the special officer to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice/respondent no. 4 has misused the name of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court in issuing the impugned communication, for reasons which are not coming forth on record.”
The Bench added that working in the Chief Justice’s secretariat gave no licence to issue such communications, and that the conduct was not only gross but possibly amounted to serious misconduct.
“Merely working with the Secretariat of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice would not mean that there is licence to indulge in issuance of such illegal communication.”
Selection process cleared to proceed
The High Court quashed the March 14 communication along with the Nashik District Judge’s consequential stay order, clearing the way for the trustee selection process to proceed in accordance with law.
What the ruling signals
The ruling draws a firm line around the administrative authority of the Chief Justice’s office. A direction to a subordinate court carries the weight of the Chief Justice only when it is backed by the record and a decision actually taken by him; an officer cannot invoke that authority on the basis of claimed oral instructions that the registry cannot verify.
By calling the conduct possible serious misconduct, the Bench has also signalled that staff in the judicial secretariat are accountable for communications issued in the Chief Justice’s name, an important safeguard for the integrity of the High Court’s own administration and for public religious trusts whose management depends on it.
Case Title: Vishnu Trimbak Warungase and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Bench: Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Neela Gokhale, Bombay High Court
Date of Judgment: October 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate AY Sakhare with Advocates Rameshwar Gite, Pravin Thorat and Tejaswini Pathave for the petitioners; Advocate General Milind Sathe with Government Pleader NS Bhide and Additional Government Pleaders OA Chandurkar and GR Raghuwanshi for the State; Senior Advocate Sharan Jagtiani with Advocates RS Datar and Nikhil Adkine for the respondents