Mumbai: Bombay High Court on Tuesday issued a notice to Maharashtra’s law and judiciary department secretary and senior legal adviser as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for his “outrageous”, “unpardonable” and “unwarranted outburst” in a packed courtroom, blaming the court administration for not filling up vacant judicial posts.
Court Criticizes Official’s Conduct in Recent Case
A division bench of Justices A S Gadkari and Kamal Khata has expressed disapproval of an official’s behavior during a recent court hearing. The justices noted that the official’s ‘aggressive demeanour’ was displayed publicly while he sought to justify his position in affidavits. This conduct not only ‘scandalised the court’ but also ‘undermined and attempted to lower its authority.’ Such remarks highlight the judiciary’s expectations regarding decorum and respect in legal proceedings.
HC was hearing a petition filed by RTI activist Vihar Durve in a public interest litigation filed in 2013.
“A judicial officer cannot exhibit such a behavior in open court and thereafter expect a pardon through an apology in any manner or form later,” Justices Gadkari and Khata said in their Sept 1 order. “To permit this would convey to the public at large a deeply troubling message: that one can commit an otherwise inexcusable act with impunity in open court and then sheepishly, in a theatrical manner, not meaning a word of it, offer an apology, either through a Senior Counsel or Advocate General to absolve himself of an act which ex facie is contemptuous,” the order noted. HC said at the hearing of an interim plea in the PIL, it was “confronted with a matter of serious concern. HC said “rather than responding to our query,” he “launched into an aggressive, high-pitched tone (bordering to shouting)” saying “the High Court administration was responsible for not filling up the 179 posts” before a packed courtroom. His outburst “undermined and attempted to lower” the authority of the court and constitutes contempt ex facie under the Contempt of Court Act, said HC.
When the additional govt pleader was unable to provide a clear response, HC asked the secretary present in court to point it out and also asked who drafted the reply.