The Supreme Court dismissed appeals filed by Advocate Nilesh C. Ojha, declining to interfere with ongoing contempt proceedings initiated by the Bombay High Court and underscored that allegations against sitting judges, particularly when made in public forums, must be exercised with utmost restraint and backed by credible material.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta drew a clear distinction between legitimate criticism of judicial decisions, and personal allegations against judges imputing motives or bias It held that while fair criticism is permissible in a democratic framework, reckless or unsubstantiated allegations against judges strike at the very foundation of the judiciary.
The appeals arose from orders passed by the High Court in September and October 2025, wherein it had rejected Ojha’s plea to implead a sitting judge as a party in contempt proceedings and had also refused to recall its earlier order. The High Court had further directed initiation of a separate suo motu criminal contempt case based on allegations made by the advocate in his application.
The controversy stemmed from a criminal writ petition filed by Ojha on behalf of his client seeking a CBI probe into a suspicious death. Prior to the matter being taken up, Ojha addressed a press conference making serious allegations against a sitting judge of the Bombay High Court, claiming bias and conflict of interest.
Taking cognizance of these statements, the Chief Justice of the High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings, observing that such remarks had the potential to scandalize the court and interfere with the administration of justice. A five-judge bench was constituted to hear the matter, and a show cause notice was issued to the advocate.
Subsequently, Ojha filed multiple applications including one seeking discharge from the contempt proceedings and another seeking impleadment of the concerned judge. The High Court rejected these pleas and termed certain filings as containing “scandalous imputations,” even cautioning the advocate regarding his conduct.
While considering the challenge, the Supreme Court emphasized that judicial independence is a foundational principle of the Constitution, resting on public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of courts.
The Bench noted that the advocate’s statements in the press conference and subsequent filings went beyond legal critique. They involved serious imputations against a sitting judge without substantiated basis. Such conduct, especially by a member of the Bar, is inconsistent with professional ethics and responsibility
The Court strongly reiterated that advocates, as officers of the court, carry a heightened duty to uphold the dignity of the judicial institution. It observed that grievances against judicial orders must be pursued through established legal remedies rather than through public statements that may erode public trust.
It further remarked that taking pending judicial issues into the public domain in a sensational manner is “wholly inconsistent” with the discipline expected from legal professionals.
After examining the record, the Supreme Court concluded that no case was made out for interference with the High Court’s orders at this stage. It clarified that the issues raised could be appropriately adjudicated by the High Court itself.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeals while directing the High Court to proceed with the contempt proceedings expeditiously and independently on merits.
Case Details
Case Title: Nilesh C. Ojha Versus High Court Of Judicature At Bombay
Citation: JURISHOUR-900-SC-2026
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 5673-5674 Of 2025
Date: 20/04/2026
Read More: High Court Can’t Reopen Title Issue Beyond Scope of Writ: Supreme Court
