In a significant move to uphold the dignity of the judiciary, the Bombay High Court has initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Advocate Nilesh Ojha for making scandalous and defamatory remarks against a sitting judge and a former Chief Justice of the High Court.
A five-judge constitutional bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, Justice A.S. Chandurkar, Justice M.S. Sonak, Justice Ravindra V. Ghughe, and Justice A.S. Gadkari passed the order after taking cognizance of a video clip from a press conference held by Ojha, which was streamed on YouTube and aired on ABP Majha.
“The statements also tend to lower the authority of the Court and such allegations also interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings. How the said statements have been made and uploaded on YouTube and ABP Majha, certainly amounts to obstructing the Administration of Justice. The statements of Mr. Nilesh Ojha, Advocate are ex facie contemptuous and amount to interference in the administration of justice and the course of judicial proceedings,”
— Bombay High Court (Five-Judge Bench)
BACKGROUND: ADVOCATE HELD PRESS CONFERENCE INSTEAD OF RAISING JUDICIAL OBJECTION IN COURT
The controversy revolves around a Criminal Writ Petition filed by Ojha on behalf of one Satish Salian, which was listed before a Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale on April 2, 2025.
Instead of raising any objection before the Bench, Ojha held a press conference, wherein he alleged:
Justice Revati Mohite-Dere should have recused herself as Vandana Chavan, an accused in the case, is her sister and affiliated with Sharad Pawar’s NCP.
The President of India had “orally” sanctioned the prosecution of the sitting judge and the former Chief Justice.
There had been forgery of court records and intentional delay in hearing the Disha Salian case.
COURT’S FINDINGS AND LEGAL REASONING
The High Court emphasized that allegations regarding judicial recusal should be submitted through proper legal procedure, not made in public forums to scandalize the judiciary.
“The statements in the press conference concerning the recusal of a sitting Judge of this Court appear to have been made deliberately to scandalize the authority of the Court and a Judge of this Court. The act of publishing interviews prima facie amounts to scandalizing this Court by making scandalous and defamatory allegations against a Judge of this Court.”
It further held that Ojha’s conduct interferes with the administration of justice, which is punishable under contempt of court laws.
INTERIM ORDERS: REMOVAL OF VIDEO AND NOTICE ISSUED TO ADVOCATE OJHA
The Court passed the following interim directions:
YouTube and ABP Majha must remove the defamatory video from their platforms forthwith.
The Union of India and the State of Maharashtra are directed to ensure compliance with the Court’s directions.
The Registry is instructed to issue a notice to Advocate Nilesh Ojha under Rule 9(1) read with Rule 8 of the Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994.
“Considering the scandalous and contemptuous nature of the offending video, as an interim measure, it is directed that YouTube and ABP Majha shall remove the video from their channels, forthwith. The Union of India and the State of Maharashtra are directed to ensure that the aforesaid ad-interim orders are implemented forthwith.”
CASE DETAILS
- Case Title: High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its motion v. Mr. Nilesh Ojha & Ors.
- Case No.: Criminal Suo Motu Contempt Petition No. 1 of 2025
- Date of Order: April 10, 2025
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Advocate Nilesh Ojha faces criminal contempt charges for defamatory statements against sitting and former judges.
- The Court asserts that such actions undermine judicial authority and obstruct the administration of justice.
- Public dissemination of baseless allegations is not protected under free speech when it aims to scandalize the judiciary.
