In a significant ruling on judicial dignity and professional conduct, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with ongoing contempt proceedings initiated by the Bombay High Court against advocate Nilesh C. Ojha. The case stems from public allegations made by the advocate against a sitting High Court judge during a press conference.
Background of the Case
The matter began with a criminal writ petition filed by the appellant on behalf of his client, seeking a CBI investigation into a death described as suspicious. Before the petition was formally taken up, the advocate addressed a press conference where he made allegations questioning the impartiality of a sitting judge of the Bombay High Court.
These statements triggered concern within the judiciary. The judge in question wrote to the Chief Justice, who then initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings. A show cause notice was issued to the advocate, and further applications were filed by him seeking discharge and even the impleadment of the judge as a party.
However, the High Court rejected these pleas and also initiated an additional contempt proceeding based on subsequent allegations made in court filings.
The Supreme Court, while examining the appeal, underscored the importance of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.
“The strength of the judiciary lies in the trust reposed by the public,” the bench observed, stressing that unfounded allegations against judges can damage that trust.
The Court drew a clear line between legitimate legal criticism and personal attacks. It noted that while litigants are free to challenge judicial decisions, such challenges must remain within the bounds of respectful and reasoned argument.
Importantly, the bench highlighted that the advocate’s conduct holding a press conference and making allegations about a sitting judge was “prima facie unbecoming” of a member of the legal profession.
It added that taking ongoing judicial matters into the public domain in a sensational manner could “scandalise the institution” and undermine the administration of justice.
After reviewing the material, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no ground to interfere with the High Court’s orders at this stage.
“We are not inclined to interdict the proceedings,” the bench stated, allowing the contempt case to continue before the High Court.
At the same time, the Court clarified that its observations were only prima facie and should not influence the final outcome of the contempt proceedings.
The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Case Details
Case Title: Nilesh C. Ojha v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay & Ors.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 5673–5674 of 2025
Judge: Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Sandeep Mehta
Decision Date: April 20, 2026
