‘Let him repent’: SC refuses relief to judge transferred to Naxal area after Bombay HC outburst

The Supreme Court has refused to stay contempt proceedings against a senior Maharashtra judicial officer who allegedly lost his temper and raised his voice before the Bombay High Court, observing that a judge could not behave in such a manner before a superior court and should instead “repent” and tender an unconditional apology.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a petition filed by judicial officer Dilip S Ghumare challenging contempt proceedings initiated by the Bombay High Court over his conduct during a hearing on September 1. The Supreme Court issued notice to the High Court on Ghumare’s plea but declined to grant him immediate protection from the contempt proceedings.

The controversy also involves Ghumare’s transfer to an area described by his counsel as Naxal-affected, around 1,000 km away. His lawyer told the Supreme Court that the officer had opted for voluntary retirement but would still have to serve for about three months at the transferred posting.

Row began over 179 fast-track court posts

The confrontation occurred when a Bombay High Court Bench of Justices A S Gadkari and Kamal Khata was considering an affidavit concerning vacancies relating to 179 newly created posts for fast-track courts.

When Ghumare, who was present during the proceedings, was asked to clarify the position, the High Court recorded that instead of answering the query, he responded in an aggressive and high-pitched manner and blamed the High Court administration for the failure to fill the vacancies.

The High Court viewed his behaviour seriously, noting that the alleged outburst occurred before a packed courtroom and was directed at the court administration. It concluded that his conduct prima facie lowered the authority of the court and issued a contempt notice against him.

Ghumare subsequently approached the Supreme Court challenging the proceedings.

Officer says he did not shout

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Ghumare, disputed the allegation that the judicial officer had shouted at the High Court. He argued that Ghumare had merely raised his voice because he was standing away from the microphone and wanted to ensure that he could be heard.

The explanation did not persuade the Supreme Court Bench. It questioned why Ghumare had chosen to resign instead of dealing with the matter by offering an unconditional apology.

The Bench remarked that if a judicial officer was so “hot-headed”, questions would arise about his suitability for judicial service. It made clear that it was unwilling at this stage to interfere with the High Court proceedings.

Singh told the court that Ghumare had already apologised before the High Court and that the apology had been recorded in its order.

Transfer to Naxal area raised before SC

Ghumare’s counsel also urged the Supreme Court to consider the circumstances of his transfer, arguing that shifting him to a Naxal-affected area immediately after the courtroom episode could send the wrong signal. He said the officer would have to serve there for three months despite having opted for voluntary retirement and sought liberty concerning withdrawal of the retirement decision.

The Supreme Court, however, remained critical of the officer’s alleged conduct. “Let him repent. This is gross indiscipline,” the Bench observed, stressing that a judicial officer had no business standing in court and accusing the High Court of failing to fill posts.

While refusing to stay the contempt proceedings, the Supreme Court provided limited interim protection by directing the Bombay High Court not to take a final decision in the contempt matter before the case is heard again.

The top court has sought the High Court’s response to Ghumare’s petition and posted the matter for further hearing on September 28.