Supreme Court Approves Contempt Trial Of Advocate For Making Allegations Against High Court Judge In Press Conference

The Supreme Court on Monday (April 20) refused to interfere with the criminal contempt proceedings initiated against an Advocate for making an unsubstantiated allegation against a sitting judge of the Bombay High Court by holding a press conference.

The Court observed that imputations of a personal nature against a judge must rest on unimpeachable evidence, and should be pursued through legal remedies, than public commentary..

"While accountability and scrutiny are integral to a constitutional democracy, imputations of personal nature against a Judge must rest on unimpeachable material and be pursued strictly in accordance with law, failing which, they risk undermining the very edifice of judicial independence," the Court observed, refusing to interfere with the contempt proceedings initiated by the High Court against Advocate Nilesh Ojha.

“Upon a prima facie consideration of the material on record, the allegations, as presently framed, appear to traverse that well-recognised boundary. They are not confined to identifying any error of law or fact, but extend to imputing motives without any demonstrable foundation. Assertions of this nature, particularly when directed against a sitting Judge of the High Court, require a degree of responsibility and substantiation commensurate with their seriousness. The tenor and sweep of the allegations, therefore, raise concerns that go beyond the immediate lis between the parties.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

The controversy arose when the appellant Nilesh Ojha, appearing in a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court, publicly alleged bias against a sitting judge (“Justice X”), claiming a conflict of interest due to familial connections with an accused in the case.

Instead of raising the issue through judicial procedures like filing a recusal plea, the advocate addressed a press conference, making allegations regarding the judge's impartiality and suggesting disqualification. This prompted the High Court to take suo motu cognizance, issuing a show-cause notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Subsequently, the High Court rejected the advocate's plea to implead the judge as a party, initiated additional contempt proceedings over further allegations made in court filings seeking the judge's impleadment, and issued an advisory warning to other advocates associated with the filings.

Refusing to interfere with the impugned proceedings, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta criticized the unbecoming conduct of the Appellant in making an unsubstantiated allegation against a sitting judge by holding a press conference, instead of adopting the proper judicial recourse to register his grievances against the judge.

“…the course adopted by the appellant-contemnor in addressing a press conference and publicly voicing allegations against a sitting Judge cannot be viewed lightly. The act of carrying a pending judicial controversy into the public domain in a manner that tends to sensationalise the proceedings or scandalise the institution or its constitutional component, i.e., the Judges, is wholly inconsistent with the discipline expected of an advocate. Professional ethics require that grievances against judicial orders must be ventilated through established legal remedies before appropriate judicial forums, rather than through public commentary capable of influencing perception about the fairness or integrity of the judicial process. The manner in which the press conference was convened and the allegations were projected is, prima facie, unbecoming of a member of law professional and falls short of the standards of propriety, restraint, professional, and ethical responsibility which the legal profession demands.”, the court observed.

Personal attacks on judge impermissible 

The Court said that a reasoned, bona fide criticism of judicial decisions is permissible, however, a personal attacks or imputations against a judge's integrity by holding a press conference is nothing but to “sensationalise” or “scandalise” the institution, which is inconsistent with the ethical duties of an advocate.

"While accountability and scrutiny are integral to a constitutional democracy, imputations of personal nature against a Judge must rest on unimpeachable material and be pursued strictly in accordance with law, failing which, they risk undermining the very edifice of judicial independence," the Court said.

“Members of the Bar occupy a position of privilege and responsibility in the administration of justice, and their conduct, both within and outside the courtroom, must reflect restraint, sobriety and fidelity to the ethical standards governing the profession.”, the Court observed, pointed out that members of the Bar, as officers of the court, bear a heightened responsibility to uphold institutional dignity and must pursue grievances strictly through legal remedies, not public platforms.

“We are, therefore, not inclined to interdict the proceedings at this stage. We request the High Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously and to adjudicate upon all issues arising therein independently and on their own merits.”, the court held.

Cause Title: NILESH C. OJHA VERSUS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Dayalu Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Pritam Biswas, Adv. Mr. Prem Sunder Jha, AOR Mr. Gaurav Khanna, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Ankit Pandey, Adv. Mr. Shighra Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankur Savadikar, Adv. Mr. Mayur P. Saavarkar, Adv. Mr. Tanveer Nizam, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Parminder Singh Bhullar, AOR