The Supreme Court declined to stay contempt proceedings against a Maharashtra judicial officer who allegedly shouted at the Bombay High Court, remarking “let him repent” and calling the conduct “gross indiscipline,” while issuing notice on his plea and asking the High Court not to finalise the matter before the next date.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to stay contempt of court proceedings initiated against a senior Maharashtra judicial officer over his alleged outburst before the Bombay High Court, observing that “a judicial officer cannot shout at the High Court” and that the conduct amounted to “gross indiscipline,” even as it issued notice on his plea and directed the High Court not to take a final decision before the next hearing [Dilip S. Ghumare v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Others].
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the plea by the officer, Dilip S. Ghumare, challenging the contempt proceedings, and sought the response of the Bombay High Court. The contempt proceedings are pending; the observations recorded below were made at the interim stage, and nothing has been finally decided.
‘Let him repent… a judicial officer cannot shout at the High Court’
The Bench was unsparing in its oral assessment of the alleged conduct, while declining the request for a stay. Rejecting the plea to interfere, the Court observed:
“Let him repent. This is gross indiscipline. A judicial officer cannot shout at the High Court.”
Appearing for Ghumare, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh submitted that his client had not shouted at the High Court but had only raised his voice because he was not standing at the microphone and needed to be heard. He also told the Court that Ghumare had since taken voluntary retirement, but would still be required to serve for three months in the area to which he had been transferred, which he described as a Naxalite-affected area about 1,000 km away, and sought liberty to withdraw his resignation.
The Bench questioned the decision to resign and indicated that the appropriate course would have been to tender an unconditional apology:
“Why did you resign? Agar itna dimaag kharab hai (if you are so hot-headed) then you are not fit for judicial service. We will not stay (the High Court order). The (proper) course should have been to submit an unconditional apology.”
When Singh submitted that Ghumare had in fact already apologised before the High Court, a fact noted in the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court remained unmoved and declined to stay the proceedings.
What happened before the Bombay High Court
The dispute arose on September 1, when a Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata of the Bombay High Court was examining an affidavit regarding vacancies in 179 newly-created posts for fast track courts. When the officer, who was present in court, was asked to clarify the position, the High Court recorded that he responded in an aggressive and high-pitched manner and blamed the High Court administration for not filling the posts.
Taking exception, the High Court issued a contempt notice, recording in its order that rather than responding to the query, the officer had launched into an aggressive, high-pitched tone bordering on shouting, and had stated, before a packed courtroom, that the High Court administration was responsible for not filling the 179 posts. The High Court took the view that the “unwarranted outburst and aggressive demeanor” displayed in open court had “not only scandalized the Court but undermined and attempted to lower its authority,” constituting contempt ex facie under Article 215 of the Constitution read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Shortly thereafter, the officer was transferred, a sequence his counsel drew attention to before the Supreme Court.
The transfer, and the Court’s response
Singh pressed the manner of the transfer, submitting that it would “give a wrong signal” that the officer had been moved to a Naxalite area the very next day, and would have to remain there for three months. The Bench was unpersuaded, reiterating its view of the seriousness of the conduct and the deference expected of officers appearing before a constitutional court:
“A judicial officer has no business to stand in court and tell the High Court that you have not filled up the posts. Let him repent. This is gross indiscipline. Even when an IAS officer comes to the court he doesn’t dare raise his voice.”
Despite declining the stay, the Court did provide a measure of interim protection to the officer’s position. It issued notice on his plea and asked the Bombay High Court not to take a final decision in the contempt proceedings before the next date of hearing in the Supreme Court, posting the matter for September 28.
Why the case matters
The proceedings raise a distinctive question in the law of contempt, that of conduct within the courtroom by a member of the subordinate judiciary itself. Contempt “in the face of the court” (ex facie contempt), which the Bombay High Court invoked under Article 215, concerns conduct in the presence of the court that scandalises or lowers its authority, and it is answered summarily precisely because the court has itself witnessed the behaviour. The Supreme Court’s sharp oral remarks reflect the institutional premise underlying that power: that the authority and decorum of a constitutional court must be maintained, and that a judicial officer, of all persons, is expected to understand and observe those limits.
At the same time, the case carries a human and institutional subtext that the officer’s counsel sought to foreground, the underlying grievance about unfilled vacancies in fast track courts, and the swift transfer to a remote, Naxalite-affected posting that followed the courtroom exchange. The tension between maintaining judicial discipline and ensuring that officers are not disproportionately dealt with for an intemperate moment is one the Supreme Court will have to weigh when it takes up the plea on merits. For now, the Court has signalled both its disapproval of the conduct and its willingness to hear the challenge, declining a stay while shielding the officer from a final adverse order in the interim. Nothing has been conclusively decided, and the contempt proceedings, and the officer’s challenge to them, remain to be resolved.
Case Title: Dilip S. Ghumare v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Others
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Hearing: September 10, 2026
