The Bombay High Court has issued a contempt notice to Maharashtra’s Law and Judiciary Department Secretary and Senior Legal Advisor after an “outrageous” and “unpardonable” outburst in a packed courtroom, after the officer allegedly blamed the court administration for vacant judicial posts.

A division bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Kamal R Khata said the officer’s “unwarranted outburst” and “aggressive demeanour”, displayed “in full public view”, not only “scandalised the court” but also “undermined and attempted to lower its authority”.

The bench said the conduct of Dilip S Ghumare, a former Principal Secretary of the department, amounted to “contempt ex facie” under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Story continues below this ad

The court was hearing an interim application by activist Vihar Durve concerning the creation and filling up of posts for fast-track courts dealing with offences against women and minor girls.

The bench had found Ghumare’s earlier affidavits “unsatisfactory”. During the hearing, it questioned Additional Government Pleader Priyabhushan P Kakade on an August 27 affidavit concerning 179 new posts for Fast Track Courts.

When Kakade failed to give a clear answer, Justice Khata asked Dilip Ghumare to clarify.

Instead of responding, Ghumare “launched into an aggressive, high-pitched tone (bordering on shouting)” and blamed the court administration, the bench said, noting that this happened before a packed courtroom.

Story continues below this ad

Describing the conduct as “manifestly unbecoming of any judicial officer”, the bench said the officer’s remarks amounted to a “deliberate and unwarranted assault upon the dignity and authority” of the court.

“Regardless of the substance of the dispute, it does not confer on him the privilege to treat this Court with utter disrespect,” it said.

The bench then sought the assistance of Advocate General Milind Sathe. Sathe said he would not defend Ghumare’s conduct but urged the court to accept an apology as the officer was present.

The bench refused.

A judicial officer, it said, “cannot certainly forget that he is a Judicial Officer” and cannot treat the court as “utterly insignificant, irrelevant or inconsequential”.

Story continues below this ad

The court also rejected the idea that an apology should automatically wipe away such conduct.

“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,” it said. The next hearing has been scheduled for September 11.