The Bombay High Court, led by Chief Justice (CJ) Shree Chandrashekhar , on Wednesday initiated a suo motu criminal contempt of court case against advocate Nilesh Ojha. This move comes in response to Ojha’s 'scandalous and scurrilous' accusations against a sitting judge, allegations he made while defending himself in another criminal contempt case.

That original case, established by a five-judge bench, was also focused on similar charges against the same judge. Earlier this year, in April, the court had initiated contempt proceedings against Ojha for making 'scandalous and defamatory' charges concerning Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and former Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyay (now CJ, Delhi High Court ).

In his defense, Ojha filed an interim application, seeking to make Justice Mohite-Dere a respondent in the initial contempt case, further accusing her of bias against the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), pointing to her sister Vandana Chavan's position within the party. Ojha also alleged perjury, forgery, and manipulation of court records by the judge.

The interim application submitted by Ojha faced sharp criticism from the five-judge bench, with Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar reprimanding the 'choice of words' and 'language' employed. The judges found that the content was defamatory and intended to scandalize the Court, thereby sowing distrust amongst the public and diminishing confidence in both the Court and the Judge.

The bench stated, "This is not mere writing of scandalous, scurrilous and contemptuous expressions in this Interim Application which constitutes criminal contempt but the act, conduct and endeavor of the applicant-contemnor (Ojha) to create a general dissatisfaction in the minds of people about the judicial determination by 'X' (the judge) also prima-facie seem to obstruct the administration of justice. The scurrilous attack on the integrity and honesty of 'X' is calculated to cause irreparable harm to the reputation and character of 'X' who was seized with a case on the judicial side," highlighting the seriousness of Ojha’s language.

Alongside Chief Justice Chandrashekhar, the bench included Justices Mahesh Sonak, Ravindra Ghuge, Ajay Gadkari, and Burgess Colabawalla, who strongly opposed the plea seeking the immediate withdrawal of judicial work from Justice Mohite-Dere.

They observed that, "It seems to us that by filing this Interim Application, the applicant-contemnor intended to cause embarrassment to 'X' and to deter her from discharging her judicial functions. The expressions used in several paragraphs of this Interim Application are disparaging in character and derogatory to the dignity of 'X' who is a sitting Judge of this High Court. The use of such expressions against a sitting Judge of this Court prima-facie tends to scandalise the authority of the Court. The personal attack on the impartiality and fairness of 'X' while discharging judicial functions are a direct attack on the character of 'X' and prima-facie causes prejudices and intends to interfere with the judicial processes," emphasizing the grave impact of Ojha’s allegations.

The judges further noted that the statements in Ojha’s interim application prima-facie interfered with the proper administration of law and justice. The derogatory remarks against a sitting Judge were not only an affront to the dignity of the Court but also aimed to erode public confidence in the judiciary's integrity.

The bench held that such wild allegations amounted to "criminal contempt." They stressed that the responsibility lies heavily on all members of the Bar to refrain from attacking a Judge under the guise of fair criticism if it risks creating public distrust in the judiciary. Such conduct would damage public faith in the judicial system and weaken the Court’s authority if left unchecked.

The bench reminded, "Every litigant has a right to present his case by all fair and honorable means but he must exercise restraint in using intemperate language in the pleadings and/or during arguments in the Court. When the conduct of an advocate tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect and disregard, it amounts to scandalizing the Court and must be held as undue interference in the administration of justice. Every Court of record has the power of summarily punishing for contempt," underscoring the seriousness of contempt proceedings.

Regarding Ojha’s conduct, the judges expressed that his attempt to attack the judge’s character could not be attributed to the right of fair and reasonable criticism. They said, "The applicant-contemnor who is an advocate by profession has adequate understanding of the law. He seems to know the possible consequences and, therefore, repeatedly writes in this Interim Application that his submissions or any expressions used by him should be treated as inadvertent mistake and not as casting aspersions on this Bench. He beseeches this Court to act with magnanimity and fairness and offers his unconditional apology in advance on account of his inadvertent mistake and states that his whole effort is directed to secure accountability of the acts of 'X', who according to him, misused her position to falsely implicate him. He further avers that such submissions he is making with utmost 'candor' and, that, his grievances are confined exclusively to the conduct of 'X'," highlighting Ojha’s claims of innocence.

However, the judges pointed out that it was apparent Ojha held a personal grudge against the judge. This was reinforced by the fact that on information from her to the Chief Justice, the current criminal suo motu contempt proceedings were initiated against him.

Additionally, it was noted that though Ojha appeared as a party-in-person in the contempt proceedings, he was accompanied by multiple advocates including Vijay Kurle, Ishwarlal Agarwal, Partho Sarkar, Abhishek Mishra, Anushka Sonawane, Devkrishna Bhambri, Shivam Gupta, Vikas Pawar, Nicky Pokar, Meena Thakur, Priyanka Sharma, Sonal Manchekar, Sagar Ugle, Nikita Kinjara, and Jayendra Manchekar, who filed their appearances alongside him.

The bench declared that these advocates committed 'professional misconduct' by assisting a person appearing in court in person, which is prohibited by the Bar Council of India regulations.

They stated, "While a party to the litigation may assist his counsel in the proceedings before the Court, an advocate who is on the rolls of the State Bar Council is prohibited from appearing in the Court as assisting counsel to a party in-person. Unmindful of their professional obligation and duties under the rules framed by the Bar Council of India, these advocates appeared in the Court proceedings and gave their appearances in the present proceedings as an advocate for the applicant-contemnor who appears in-person."

Despite this finding, the bench refrained from initiating proceedings against these lawyers presently, cautioning them that, "These advocates are let off with a warning to remain alive at all times to their professional duties and bearing in mind that what may be lawful and proper for a member of the society may still not be proper or rather improper for them."

Finally, the bench directed the Registry to formally register a suo motu criminal contempt of court case against Ojha and issue a show-cause notice under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Ojha has been ordered to file his reply by the next hearing scheduled for October 16.

Appearance:

Senior Advocates Darius Khambata and Dr Milind Sathe, appeared as the Amici Curiae in the case along with Advocates Gaurav Srivastav, Aditya Mhase and Rasika Satane.

Advocate Nilesh Ojha appeared as a Party-In-Person along with Advocates Vijay Kurle, Ishwarlal Agarwal, Partho Sarkar, Abhishek Mishra, Anushka Sonawane, Devkrishna Bhambri, Shivam Gupta, Vikas Pawar, Nicky Pokar, Meena Thakur, Priyanka Sharma, Sonal Manchekar, Sagar Ugle, Nikita Kinjara and Jayendra Manchekar.

Advocate General Dr Birendra Saraf assisted by Additional Public Prosecutor Mankunwar Deshmukh represented the State.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh along with Advocates Aditya Thakkar, Savita Ganoo, Dhirendra Singh, Dhaval Shethia, Adarsh Vyas and Rama Gupta represented the Union of India.

Advocates Mahesh Pol, Rutuja Joshi and Prasad Gajbhiye represented the BCI.

Advocates Dr Uday Warunjikar and Yogendra Rajgor represented the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.

Senior Advocate Naushad Engineer along with Advocate Mukul Taly, Ravikumar Kamble and Shifa Quraishi instructed by S Mahomedbhai & Co. represented The Bombay Bar Association.

Advocate Gunjan Shah represented the Advocates' Association of Western India.

Advocates Naresh Thacker and Tanmay Bhave instructed by Economic Laws Practice represented Google LLC.

Case Title: High Court of Judicature At Bombay On Its Own Motion vs Nilesh C Ojha (Interim Application 3297 of 2025)