The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court’s decision to proceed with criminal contempt against advocate Nilesh C. Ojha. It said sensationalising cases and casting reckless aspersions undermines judicial independence and breaches advocate discipline standards.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court’s decision to move ahead with criminal contempt proceedings against advocate Nilesh C. Ojha.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta refused to set aside the High Court’s orders, holding that judicial independence is a core constitutional principle that cannot be diluted.
The Bench remarked,
“The act of carrying a pending judicial controversy into the public domain in a manner that tends to sensationalise the proceedings… is wholly inconsistent with the discipline expected of an advocate…reckless aspersions strike at the very foundation of judicial independence by undermining the trust upon which the authority of the judiciary ultimately rests,”
The case stems from remarks made by the lawyer about Justice Revati Mohite Dere in connection with proceedings tied to the death of Disha Salian.
The controversy began with a petition filed by Satish Salian seeking a fresh investigation into his daughter’s death. The matter attracted wider attention because of its association with the late actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
Before the petition was even taken up for admission, Ojha addressed a press conference and alleged that Justice Mohite Dere was not impartial.
In response, the High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings. Ojha later asked to implead the judge as a respondent, arguing that she had effectively acted as a complainant after reporting the incident to the Chief Justice.
Earlier, The High Court rejected his request and also launched a separate contempt proceeding concerning the content of his application.
Agreeing with this approach, the Supreme Court said that a judge who reports alleged contempt does not become a party to the litigation. It clarified that such involvement does not transform the judge into a complainant who can be subjected to cross-examination.
It remarked,
“The societal perception of Judges as being detached and impartial referees is the greatest strength of the judiciary and every member of the judiciary must ensure that this perception does not receive a setback consciously or unconsciously,”
The Court further observed that public confidence in the judiciary is grounded in the belief in neutrality, adding that efforts to portray judges as interested parties can weaken this foundation.
The Bench also declined to intervene with the second contempt matter initiated by the High Court, noting that the advocate’s conduct fell below the professional standards expected of an officer of the court.
Case Title: Nilesh C Ojha vs. High Court of Bombay