Bombay High Court Quashes Nashik Temple Trust Directive Issued in Former Chief Justice’s Name

High Court sets aside unauthorised communication

The Bombay High Court has quashed a communication issued by a special officer attached to a former Chief Justice that halted appointments to the Shree Saptashrung Nivasini Devi Trust in Nashik. A Division Bench of Justices G S Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale found that the communication was issued without a proper administrative foundation and improperly invoked the Chief Justice’s name.

The Court also set aside the consequential direction of the Nashik Principal District and Sessions Judge staying the trustee selection process. The decision restores the legal position by removing the impugned interference; it should not be described as the Court itself selecting or appointing trustees.

How the trustee selection was interrupted

A list of five proposed trustees had been finalised after interviews on 12 March 2026. Two days later, special officer Anju Shende sent a communication directing withdrawal of the list. The communication purported to reflect oral instructions from the then Chief Justice, Shree Chandrashekhar, and referred to a newly issued State ordinance.

Persons involved in the selection process challenged the communication. Their objection was directed at the authority and provenance of the instruction, rather than merely dissatisfaction with the outcome of the interviews. The dispute required the Court to examine whether a communication attributed to the Chief Justice was actually supported by the institutional record.

What the Registry record disclosed

During the hearing, counsel appearing for the High Court administration and the district judge acknowledged that no formal submission or proposal concerning the trustee list had been placed before the Chief Justice. The Bench found no Registry record supporting the suggestion that the impugned communication represented a decision of the Chief Justice.

The Court criticised the use of the Chief Justice’s name in these circumstances and described the special officer’s conduct in strong terms. The judicial finding concerns the legality and propriety of the administrative communication. It is not equivalent to a criminal conviction, and no criminal liability should be inferred from the reported order alone.

Authority cannot be assumed from proximity to office

The Bench emphasised that service in the secretariat of a constitutional office does not independently confer power to issue directions in the office-holder’s name. An administrative instruction must have an identifiable lawful source. A communication that invokes high authority without supporting records undermines confidence in official processes and can affect third parties who have participated in a selection exercise.

The case is particularly sensitive because the instruction reached a district judge and altered an ongoing trustee appointment process. The High Court’s review therefore addressed not only an internal lapse but also the legal consequences that followed from the disputed communication.

Operative result and limits of the order

The Division Bench quashed the special officer’s communication and the consequential stay order made by the Nashik district judge. That removes the specific impediment created by the disputed directive. The trustee process must thereafter be governed by the applicable legal framework and any lawful administrative decisions.

The Court’s observations about the officer’s conduct are significant, but a reader should distinguish criticism and a possible misconduct issue from a concluded disciplinary or criminal proceeding. No independently verified subsequent departmental decision has been identified in the available material.

Why the decision matters

The judgment illustrates the importance of written records, traceable instructions and separation between an office-holder’s authority and the acts of supporting staff. Even a communication appearing to originate from a senior judicial office can be tested for legality when it affects rights or administrative decisions.

For public trusts and district-level administrators, the lesson is that consequential directions should be supported by authentic orders or documented authority. For court administration, it reinforces the need for clear channels of communication and recordkeeping when sensitive appointments or public functions are involved.