Senior Legal Advisor's conduct in open court found to undermine court's dignity; apology rejected, contempt notice issued under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
In a significant ruling delivered on September 1, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata) held that an intemperate outburst and aggressive behavior exhibited by Mr. Dilip S. Ghumare, a senior judicial officer and Secretary and Senior Legal Advisor to the Department of Law and Judiciary, constituted contempt of court "ex facie" under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The incident occurred during the hearing of an interim application in Public Interest Litigation No. 219 of 2013. The Court was addressing unsatisfactory affidavits filed regarding the creation and filling of 179 new posts for Fast Track Courts in Maharashtra. When Mr. Ghumare was unable to respond satisfactorily about the contents and drafting of the affidavits, Justice Kamal Khata invited him to clarify the matter. Instead of providing a direct response, Mr. Ghumare responded with an aggressive, high-pitched tone in open court, blaming the High Court administration for failing to fill the posts. This conduct was described by the Bench as a deliberate and unwarranted assault on the dignity and authority of the Court, scandalizing the institution and amounting to contempt "ex facie curiae".
The Court emphasized that such aggressive conduct was "manifestly unbecoming" of a judicial officer, especially one holding a senior administrative post interfacing between the Judiciary and the Legislature. The Court underscored the importance of maintaining decorum and respect in judicial proceedings, particularly from judicial officers, whose conduct sets an example for litigants and the public.
Although Mr. Ghumare offered an apology through the Advocate General, the Court made it clear that an apology cannot absolve a contemner of contemptuous conduct witnessed publicly. The Bench cited the Supreme Court's decision in Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995) 2 SCC 584, reinforcing that contemptuous acts committed in open court cannot be excused merely by a subsequent apology.
Following the incident, the Court directed the Registrar Judicial-II to issue notice under Chapter XXXIV, Rule 9(1) of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (also known as the Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994) to Mr. Ghumare to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. The notice was made returnable on September 11, 2026. Mr. Ghumare was personally present in Court and waived formal service of notice through the Advocate General.
The ruling sends a strong message regarding the sanctity and authority of the judiciary, emphasizing that no judicial officer, regardless of rank or position, is entitled to disrespect the Court or undermine its dignity. It highlights the judiciary's firm stance on maintaining decorum and the seriousness with which contempt of court is treated in India.
Bottom Line:
Contempt of Court - Judicial officer's intemperate outburst and aggressive behavior in open court amounts to contempt ex facie curiae under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Such conduct undermines the dignity and authority of the Court and is unpardonable. Apology offered later cannot absolve the contemner of such contemptuous conduct.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 215 of the Constitution of India, Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Chapter XXXIV, Rule 9(1) of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994)
Vihar Shivajirao Durve v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972560
