"Let Him Repent": Supreme Court On Judicial Officer Who Allegedly Shouted At Bombay High Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to stay contempt proceedings initiated by the Bombay High Court against Maharashtra Law and Judiciary Department Secretary Dilip S. Ghumare over his alleged aggressive outburst during court proceedings.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, however, issued notice on Ghumare’s plea challenging the contempt action and directed that the Bombay High Court shall not pass a final order in the proceedings until September 28, when the matter will be taken up again.

The Supreme Court made strong observations about Ghumare’s conduct during the hearing. “A judicial officer cannot shout at the High Court,” the Bench observed, while Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked, “Let him repent. This is gross indiscipline.”

The Bench also questioned why Ghumare had chosen to resign after the incident, observing that the appropriate course would have been to tender an unconditional apology. “Why did you resign?” the Court asked, adding that if he was unable to control his temper, he was “not fit for judicial service.”

What happened before the Bombay High Court?

The contempt proceedings stem from a hearing before a Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata of the Bombay High Court on September 1.

The Bench was hearing an interim application in a 2013 public interest litigation concerning the creation and filling up of posts for Fast Track Courts, particularly those dealing with offences against women and minor girls. The proceedings also concerned earlier directions issued by the High Court regarding judicial vacancies.

During the proceedings, the High Court considered an additional affidavit dated August 27, 2026, which stated that 179 new posts had been created for Fast Track Courts.

The Bench questioned the Additional Government Pleader about the relevant averments in the affidavit. As the lawyer was unable to provide a clear response, the Court turned to Ghumare, who was present in court and had been associated with the affidavits filed on behalf of the State.

According to the High Court's September 1 order, when Justice Khata asked Ghumare to clarify the position and questioned who had drafted the affidavit, he allegedly responded in an “aggressive, high-pitched tone (bordering to shouting).”

The High Court recorded that Ghumare had, among other things, blamed the High Court administration and stated that “the High Court Administration was responsible for not filling up the 179 posts.” It took serious exception to the manner in which the statement was made, particularly because it occurred in a packed courtroom.

The High Court held that the alleged “unwarranted outburst and aggressive demeanour”, displayed openly while Ghumare was attempting to justify the position taken in his affidavits, had not only “scandalised the Court” but also undermined and attempted to lower its authority.

It consequently held that the conduct constituted contempt ex facie under Article 215 of the Constitution read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

High Court rejects apology

The Bombay High Court also considered the apology offered on Ghumare’s behalf but declined to accept it as sufficient to erase the alleged misconduct. The Bench observed that a judicial officer could not behave improperly in open court and subsequently expect to be pardoned merely by tendering an apology. It described the conduct as “wholly unpardonable” and “outrageous”, stating that allowing such behaviour to be condoned through an apology could send a troubling message that an individual could act with impunity in open court and later seek absolution.

The High Court accordingly issued notice to Ghumare asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.

Ghumare challenges contempt action before Supreme Court

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Ghumare, disputed the characterization of the incident as shouting before Supreme Court

He submitted that Ghumare had merely raised his voice because he was not standing close to the microphone and needed to be heard. He also argued that the High Court itself had described his tone as “bordering to shouting”, rather than saying he had actually shouted.

Singh also informed the Bench that Ghumare had since opted for voluntary retirement and was required to serve a three-month period at a posting which, according to the counsel, was in a Naxalite-affected area nearly 1,000 kilometres away. Singh sought permission for Ghumare to withdraw his resignation.

The Bench has issued notice on Ghumare’s plea and protected him from the immediate consequence of a final contempt order by directing the Bombay High Court not to conclude the proceedings until the Supreme Court considers the matter further.

Case Title: Dilip S. Ghumare vs. High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Other

Hearing Date: September 10, 2026

Bench: Justices Nath and Mehta