New Delhi, September 11: The Supreme Court has refused to stay contempt proceedings initiated by the Bombay High Court against Dilip S. Ghumare, Maharashtra’s Law Department Secretary and a senior judicial officer, over his alleged conduct during a hearing on judicial vacancies.
However, the Supreme Court has restrained the Bombay High Court from passing a final order in the contempt proceedings until September 28, 2026, when the matter will come up for further hearing.
Supreme Court Issues Notice to Law Secretary
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice on Ghumare’s plea challenging the contempt proceedings initiated by the Bombay High Court.
While the Supreme Court declined to halt the proceedings themselves, it granted temporary protection by directing that the High Court should not pass a final order in the contempt matter until the next hearing.
The case is Dilip S Ghumare v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, registered as Diary No. 55144/2026.
Controversy Arose During Fast Track Courts Hearing
The dispute arose during a public interest litigation before the Bombay High Court concerning the creation and filling of posts for Fast Track Courts.
The High Court had questioned why newly created judicial positions had not been filled. According to the court, an additional affidavit stated that 179 new posts had been created for Fast Track Courts.
Ghumare, who was then Secretary and Senior Legal Advisor in the Law and Judiciary Department, was present during the proceedings.
When the government lawyer was unable to provide a clear response, the High Court asked Ghumare to point out the relevant details concerning the vacancies.
https://the420.in/fcrf-academy-certified-cyber-security-auditor-ccsa-program-launch/
High Court Alleged Ghumare Spoke in Aggressive Tone
According to the Bombay High Court, Ghumare responded in an “aggressive, high-pitched tone (bordering to shouting)” and attributed responsibility for the vacancies to the High Court administration.
The High Court viewed the remarks as an attempt to blame its administration for the failure to fill the 179 posts and held that the alleged conduct undermined the authority of the court.
The incident subsequently led to contempt proceedings against the officer.
Ghumare’s Counsel Denies Shouting
Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Ghumare, argued that the officer had only attempted to explain the vacancy position.
Singh said Maharashtra had 1,101 sanctioned judicial posts, of which 385 had been filled, and denied that Ghumare had shouted at the High Court.
He repeatedly urged the Supreme Court to examine the audio-video recording of the proceedings to determine what had actually occurred.
Supreme Court Questions Conduct
Justice Sandeep Mehta questioned the alleged conduct and observed that an officer cannot shout at a court, describing the behaviour alleged by the High Court as “gross indiscipline.”
Justice Vikram Nath also observed that even if responsibility for delays lay with the High Court administration, a judicial officer appearing before the court could not tell the court that it was responsible in such a manner.
The bench indicated that an unconditional apology before the High Court would be the appropriate course for Ghumare.
https://the420.in/algoritha-security-cyber-crisis-drill-ttex-ccmp-readiness-banks/
Apology Had Already Been Submitted
Ghumare’s counsel informed the Supreme Court that an apology had already been submitted before the High Court but was rejected.
The Supreme Court has therefore allowed the contempt proceedings to continue while temporarily preventing the Bombay High Court from passing a final order in the matter before September 28.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court will hear Ghumare’s challenge again on September 28, 2026. Until then, the Bombay High Court can continue with the contempt proceedings but cannot pass a final order against him.
The Supreme Court’s interim protection does not amount to a final finding on the allegations or the legality of the contempt proceedings.
What This Means For You: The case highlights the standards of conduct expected from public officials and judicial officers when appearing before courts. It also shows that an interim order from the Supreme Court can temporarily restrict further judicial action without deciding the underlying dispute.
The420 Insight: The audio-video recording of the original hearing could become important if the Supreme Court is required to assess the circumstances surrounding the alleged outburst. The proceedings will also test how courts balance institutional authority, official accountability and the right of an accused officer to contest allegations about their conduct.
About the author — Ananya Aradhya writes on cybercrime, fraud, scams, cybersecurity, digital safety, and emerging threats. Her work also covers major criminal cases, financial frauds, consumer scams, and stories that highlight risks affecting people in the real and digital world.