The Bombay High Court has formally quashed an administrative communication issued by a Special Officer to the then Chief Justice, which had abruptly halted the selection process for trustees at the Shree Saptashrung Nivasini Devi Trust in Nashik. The Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale ruled that the directive—which required the immediate removal of a list of recommended trustees from the district court’s website—was issued without any legal jurisdiction or valid administrative approval. The court characterized the officer’s actions as an act of gross impropriety that necessitated the immediate restoration of the selection process.

The controversy originated on March 14, 2026, when Anju Shende, then serving as the Special Officer to the Chief Justice, transmitted an electronic communication to the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Nashik. The email asserted that, under specific directions from the then Chief Justice, the list of recommended trustees for the temple trust, published only two days prior, must be withdrawn and held in abeyance pending further instructions. Acting on this, the Nashik District Court immediately stayed its own selection proceedings and removed the list from its online portal. Five candidates who had been selected for the positions subsequently moved the High Court, challenging the legality of the communication and the resulting stay of their appointments.

Unverified Authority and Procedural Lapses

During the hearing, the High Court scrutinized the internal processes of the High Court Registry. The Bench noted that for any administrative order to emanate from the Chief Justice’s office, it must follow an established chain of command involving formal office submissions and documented approvals. In this instance, when specifically queried by the court as to whether an office submission had been placed before the then Chief Justice for approval, counsel for the respondents admitted that no such internal procedural requirement had been satisfied.

The court expressed grave concern over how the officer, acting within the High Court ’s administrative framework, could unilaterally attribute a directive to the head of the judiciary without substantive authorization. In its detailed judgment, the Bench observed, "We refuse to believe that the directions contained in the impugned communication can, in law, be regarded to be a decision of the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice." The judges emphasized that the authority to appoint trustees for the trust at that time was legally vested with the District Judge of Nashik under the existing scheme of the trust, and no administrative intervention from the High Court was warranted by the prevailing laws.

Furthermore, the court clarified the legal position regarding the Maharashtra Public Trusts (Amendment) Ordinance of 2025. While the government had sought to introduce Section 50B to transfer appointment powers to the Charity Commissioner, that provision had not been notified at the time the trustee selection was concluded. Consequently, the District Judge’s actions were entirely consistent with the statutory landscape at the time of the appointment, rendering the Special Officer’s interference not only procedurally irregular but legally foundationless.

Integrity of the Administrative Office

The court’s judgment reserved some of its harshest criticism for the potential misuse of the Chief Justice’s name in official correspondence. The Bench found that the Special Officer had created an impression of judicial authority where none existed, essentially bypassing the legal framework to influence a selection process that had already reached its final stages. By documenting these actions, the High Court signaled a strong warning regarding the maintenance of administrative standards within the judicial registry.

"The impugned communication ... is a clear case where the Special Officer to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice has misused the name of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court ... for reasons which are not coming forth on record," the court stated. The judges further noted that the Special Officer’s reliance on vague telephonic instructions as a justification for overriding a legally mandated process raised questions about the sanctity of the office. The Bench remarked that such conduct, if left unchecked, would undermine public confidence in the administrative integrity of the judiciary.

The High Court ultimately found no justification for the communication in the affidavits filed by the Registry officials. It emphasized that even those serving in the Secretariat of the Chief Justice must adhere strictly to the rules of law and transparent procedure. The court highlighted that as a member of the Registry, the officer was expected to uphold the dignity of the institution, rather than acting in a manner that could be perceived as encroaching upon the lawful exercise of statutory duties by subordinate courts.

By setting aside the impugned communication dated March 14, 2026, and the subsequent order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Nashik, the High Court has effectively removed the legal impediment blocking the trustee appointments. The ruling serves as a precedent for the limits of administrative interference in the discharge of judicial and quasi-judicial functions at the district level. With the quashing of these orders, the selection process for the five trustees, which was completed in accordance with the established Trust Deed and governing bye-laws of the Saptashrung Nivasini Devi Trust, is now cleared to resume as per law. The matter underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that administrative communications, even those claiming to represent high-ranking judicial authorities, remain grounded in verified, lawful procedure and documented approval.