Supreme Court holds advocates cannot publicly impute motives to judges without basis; such conduct may amount to contempt by scandalising judiciary.

Case Name: Nilesh C. Ojha v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay Through Secretary & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 390

Date of Judgment/Order: 20 April 2026

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Held: The Supreme Court held that while a litigant or advocate is entitled to challenge a judicial order before a higher forum, such challenge must remain within the bounds of civilised, temperate and legally permissible criticism. Publicly imputing motives, bias or lack of impartiality to a sitting judge without demonstrable and unimpeachable material may prima facie scandalise the Court, lower the authority of the judiciary and erode public confidence in the administration of justice. The Court emphasised that advocates, being officers of the Court, carry a heightened duty of restraint, sobriety and professional responsibility, and pending judicial controversies should not be carried into the public domain through press conferences in a manner that sensationalises proceedings or undermines the institutional integrity of the judiciary.

Summary: The appellant, an advocate, had filed a criminal writ petition on behalf of his client seeking investigation into a death allegedly occurring in suspicious circumstances. Before the matter was mentioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, the appellant addressed a press conference in which he cast aspersions on one of the sitting judges, alleging disqualification and lack of impartiality. The concerned judge brought the matter to the notice of the Chief Justice, who took suo motu cognizance and constituted a five-Judge Bench for criminal contempt proceedings. During those proceedings, the appellant filed an application seeking impleadment of the judge as a party respondent, which the High Court dismissed, holding that a judge who merely furnished information to the Chief Justice could not be treated as a complainant or necessary party. The High Court also directed registration of a separate suo motu criminal contempt case based on further imputations made in the impleadment application and later dismissed the appellant’s recall application. The Supreme Court, considering the matter at a prima facie stage, held that the allegations went beyond criticism of judicial orders and entered the territory of personal imputations against a constitutional functionary.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court’s orders dated 17 September 2025 and 16 October 2025. The Court held that the contempt proceedings should not be interdicted at this stage and requested the High Court to proceed expeditiously and adjudicate all issues independently and on their own merits. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to a prima facie consideration for deciding the appeals and would not be treated as an opinion on the merits of the contempt proceedings or influence the High Court’s independent adjudication. Pending applications were disposed of.