The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the response of the Bombay High Court on a plea challenging contempt of court proceedings initiated against a senior judicial officer from Maharashtra over his alleged outburst before the High Court [Dilip S Ghumare Versus High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Ors.].

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta however declined to stay the contempt proceedings against the officer, one Dilip S Ghumare, who was allegedly transferred to a naxalite area shortly after the Bombay High Court took exception to his actions.

"Let him repent. This is gross indiscipline. A judicial officer cannot shout at the High Court" the Court said.

The dispute arose before the Bombay High Court on September 1 when a Bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata was examining an affidavit regarding vacancies in 179 new posts for fast track courts.

The High Court questioned the State's counsel about the affidavit. When Ghumare, who was present in court, was asked to clarify the position, the High Court recorded that he responded in an aggressive and high-pitched manner and blamed the High Court administration for not filling up the posts.

Taking exception to Ghumare's behaviour, the High Court issued contempt of court notice against him.

"Rather than responding to our query, the Deponent (Ghumare) launched into an aggressive, high-pitched tone (bordering to shouting) inter alia blaming the High Court administration, apart from other sentences stated that “the High Court Administration was responsible for not filling up the 179 posts” before a packed Courtroom. We are of the view that, Mr. Ghumare’s unwarranted outburst and aggressive demeanor, deliberately displayed in open court in full public view while attempting to justify the stand in his affidavits, not only scandalized 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 High Court noted.

Ghumare then approached the Supreme Court challenging the proceedings.

Before the top court today, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing Ghumare, said that he had not shouted at the High Court but had only raised his voice because he was not standing at the microphone and needed to be heard.

Singh also told the Court that Ghumare had since taken voluntary retirement but would still be required to serve for three months in the area where he had been transferred, which he described as a Naxalite area.

“I have resigned but for 3 months I’ll have to go that naxalite area which is 1,000 kms away. Your lordships should give me liberty to withdraw my resignation also,” Singh said.

The bench questioned Ghumare's decision to resign and said that the appropriate course for him would have been to tender an unconditional apology.

“Why did you resign? Agar itna dimaag kharab hai (if you are so hot-headed) then you are not fit for judicial service. We will not stay (the High Court order). The (proper) course should have been to submit an unconditional apology,” the Court said.

Singh then submitted that Ghumare had already apologised before the High Court, a fact which was noted in the High Court order.

The Supreme Court, however, remained unmoved and declined to stay the contempt proceedings against him.

Singh pressed further, highlighting the manner in which Ghumare was transferred.

“It will give a wrong signal. The officer is transferred the very next day to a naxalite area. Three months, he will have to be there." Singh said.

“A judicial officer has no business to stand in court and tell the High Court that you have not filled up the posts. Let him repent. This is gross indiscipline. Even when an IAS officer comes to the court he doesn’t dare raise his voice,” the Court replied.

However, it issued notice on Ghumare's plea and asked the High Court not to take a final decision in the contempt proceedings before the next date of hearing in the Supreme Court.

It then posted the matter for further hearing on September 28.