The Bombay High Court on Tuesday, September 1, 2026, issued a contempt notice to Dilip S. Ghumare, Secretary and Senior Legal Advisor, Department of Law and Judiciary, Maharashtra, after observing that he launched into an aggressive, high-pitched tone bordering to shouting and blamed the High Court administration during court proceedings.
A division bench comprising Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata was hearing an interim application in a public interest litigation concerning judicial appointments in Maharashtra. Ghumare, who is a senior judicial officer and formerly served as Principal Secretary and R.L.A. to the Law and Judiciary Department, was present in court. During the hearing, the bench took note of an affidavit filed by Ghumare regarding the creation of 179 new Fast Track Courts.
When the bench questioned Ghumare about the averments made in his affidavit, he appeared hesitant to respond. Justice Khata then posed a straightforward question: who had drafted the affidavit and whether it contained the necessary averments. Instead of answering, Ghumare launched into an aggressive, high-pitched tone, bordering on shouting, and inter alia blamed the High Court administration for not filling up the 179 posts, speaking before a packed courtroom.
The bench recorded that Ghumare's unwarranted outburst and aggressive demeanour, deliberately displayed in open court in full public view while attempting to justify the stand in his affidavits, not only scandalised the court but undermined and attempted to lower its authority, constituting contempt ex facie as contemplated under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The bench noted that Ghumare's intemperate outburst constituted a deliberate and unwarranted assault upon the dignity and authority of the High Court. It also refused to accept his apology, tendered through Advocate General Dr Milind Sathe, who was called to the court by the judges in the second session of the hearing.
The judges remarked that such conduct is manifestly unbecoming of any judicial officer and simply outrageous, falling far below the standard expected. They emphasized that it has long been the settled practice of the court that all litigants, whether in civil or criminal matters, are expected to maintain decorum and respect the sanctity of proceedings. This expectation becomes imperative when the person in question is himself a judicial officer.
The bench stated that a judicial officer cannot exhibit such behaviour in open court and thereafter expect a pardon through an apology in any manner or form later. Permitting this would convey to the public a deeply troubling message: that one can commit an otherwise inexcusable act with impunity in open court and then, in a theatrical manner, offer an apology through senior counsel or the Advocate General to absolve oneself of an act which ex facie is contemptuous.
The judges clearly opined that such conduct by the officer in open court, witnessed by all present, was wholly unpardonable and cannot be countenanced. They emphasized that Ghumare, formerly a Principal Secretary and currently a Secretary at the Department of Law and Judiciary, cannot forget that he is a judicial officer and cannot regard the court as utterly insignificant, irrelevant, or inconsequential in any manner, nor can it be lightly trammeled upon.
The bench highlighted that the post of a Principal Secretary or Secretary at the Department of Law and Judiciary is an important position in the interface between the judiciary and the legislature. Regardless of the substance of the dispute, it does not confer on him the privilege to treat the court with utter disrespect.
Consequently, the bench issued a notice to Ghumare, Secretary and Senior Legal Advisor, Department of Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai, as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for committing the aforesaid act. The matter has been posted for further hearing on September 11, 2026.
Appearance: Advocates Narayan Bubna and AA Achhra appeared for the PIL petitioner. Advocate General Dr. Milind Sathe, along with Chief Government Pleader Neha Bhide, Additional Government Pleader Priyabhushan Kakade, and Assistant Government Pleader VR Raje represented the state.