A judicial officer cannot raise his voice against judges or tell a court that it was responsible for its own failure to fill sanctioned posts, the Supreme Court said on Thursday, as it declined to stay criminal contempt proceedings against a senior Maharashtra judicial officer accused of adopting an aggressive, high-pitched tone “bordering to shouting” and blaming the Bombay high court administration during court proceedings.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, however, restrained the Bombay high court from taking a final decision in the contempt proceedings pending before it. The Supreme Court bench also questioned Ghumare’s justification for his conduct. “A judicial officer has no business to tell a court that it is the court which is responsible for not filling up the posts. He should repent for his words. This is gross indiscipline. The bench advised Ghumare to return to the high court and tender an unconditional apology. “Our advice to you is that you should go back to the high court and seek an unconditional apology. Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Ghumare, sought a stay of the high court proceedings, saying his client had already tendered an apology and had subsequently sought voluntary retirement.
The bench issued notice on the officer’s plea and listed the matter for September 28, allowing the high court to continue with the proceedings in the meantime. The bench was hearing a plea by Dilip S Ghumare, secretary and senior legal adviser in Maharashtra’s Department of Law and Judiciary, challenging the Bombay high court’s September 1 order initiating contempt proceedings against him. Singh said Ghumare had to serve a three-month notice period and had also been transferred to a Naxalite area, nearly 1,000 km away.
“A judicial officer cannot shout against the judges in a court,” the bench said during the hearing. Even a senior bureaucrat does not dare to raise his voice in the court,” it said. Let the high court consider your request,” it said. Singh also sought a video recording of the proceedings, pointing out that the high court order described Ghumare’s conduct as “bordering on shouting” rather than expressly stating that he had shouted.
