‘Why disobey to obey later?’: Bombay High Court asks ‘million-dollar question’ as Staff Selection Commission director apologises
Earlier, the Bombay High Court issued a contempt notice, calling it a “classic case” where even officers displayed the audacity to disobey court orders and raised concerns over the growing “tendency".
3 min readMumbaiUpdated: Apr 29, 2026 02:11 PM IST
The bench observed that the earlier assurance given by the authorities will apply to the petitioners and also directed that the candidates’ seniority be protected. File Photo
Less than a week after pulling up the Staff Selection Commission (SSC)’s director for defying its orders, the Bombay High Court was informed Wednesday that appointment letters had been issued to two candidates who were earlier denied induction into the Central defence forces.
R G Singh, Director, SSC, appeared before the court and tendered an unconditional apology, which the bench accepted and purged the contempt.
A Division Bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and Hiten S Venegavkar was hearing two pleas by Sushant Bhausaheb Sarode and Aniket Sunil Jadhav, saying they were not inducted in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and Border Security Force (BSF) due to a “minuscule difference in height of 3 and 4 millimetres”.
The high court was earlier informed that they were declared qualified and were held eligible in the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) and were “being kept at bay despite having succeeded before the High Court” and the Supreme Court.
“We always have a question in our mind, because we keep the majesty of law and court in focus. Why do people disobey the law and orders and then obey them in contempt proceedings? That is probably a million-dollar question. Why do they first disobey to obey after issuance of contempt notice?” The bench orally remarked.
On April 24, the Bombay High Court issued a contempt notice, calling it a “classic case” where even officers displayed the audacity to disobey court orders and raised concerns over the growing “tendency”, leading to hundreds of contempt pleas filed every year against state and Central officers.
On Wednesday, Senior Advocate R V Govilkar, representing the Centre, told the bench that orders to induct the two petitioners in the training programme from May 12 and 28, respectively, have already been dispatched.
Story continues below this ad
Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Venkatesh A Shastry expressed satisfaction with the outcome and sought the disposal of the pleas as he did not intend to press the issue further.
“In view of this, the contempt is purged. Since the petitions have been worked out, both the petitions are disposed of,” the bench noted.
The bench observed that the earlier assurance given by the authorities will apply to the petitioners and also directed that the candidates’ seniority be protected, aligned with their original batch, and ensured they would undergo full training without any disadvantage.
“If they clear the said examination, they would be subjected to training like any other candidate for the same duration and the same course, and they would not be deprived of any portion of the training.”
Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions.
Expertise & Authority
Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage.
Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in:
Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include:
Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes).
Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty).
Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict.
Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability.
Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges.
Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More
