Bombay HC 5-Judge Bench Initiates Additional Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Lawyer For 'Scandalous' Remarks In Plea Against Judge
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday initiated another suo motu criminal contempt of court case against advocate Nilesh Ojha, who made 'scandalous and scurrilous' allegations against a sitting judge, while defending himself in another criminal contempt of court case, which was initiated by a five-judge bench for levelling similar allegations against the same judge.
For context, suo motu criminal contempt proceedings were initiated against Ojha in April this year, for making 'scandalous and defamatory' allegations against Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and former Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyay (now Delhi HC CJ). Defending himself in that case, Ojha filed an interim application and prayed for impleading Justice Mohite-Dere as a respondent to the initial contempt proceedings. He even made several allegations against the judge, accusing her of being biased against the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and favouring the party in which her sister Vandana Chavan holds a position. He even accused the judge of perjury, forgery etc and manipulating court records.
Scandalising choice of language in interim application
However, the interim application filed by Ojha seeking to discharge him was criticised by the five judge-bench headed by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar of the High Court for the 'choice of words' and the 'language' used in the said application, which the judges held was defamatory and made to scandalise the Court in such a way as to create distrust in the people's mind and impair the confidence of the people in the Court and the Judge.
"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," the bench said in the order.
The bench also comprising of Justices Mahesh Sonak, Ravindra Ghuge, Ajay Gadkari and Burgess Colabawalla, strongly objected to the prayer made in one of the applications to immediately withdraw judicial work from Justice Mohite-Dere.
"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," the five-judges observed.
Statements tend to interfere with administration of justice
Further, the judges prima-facie, opined that the statements made in the instant Interim Application tend to interfere with the proper administration of law and justice. The derogatory statements made against a sitting Judge of the Court offend the dignity of the Court and are calculated to undermine the confidence of the public in the integrity of the Judge. The act of making wild allegations against 'X' in this Interim Application is squarely covered under the definition of and constitutes “criminal contempt," the bench held.
The five-judges further observed that it is the obligation of every person and rests more upon the members of the Bar that a Judge is not attacked in a veil of fair criticism in a manner which would create distrust against the Judge in the minds of the public or a section of the society. It would erode public confidence in the judicial system and undermine the authority of the Court if the courts ignore the conduct of a person designed to or suggestive of creating unnecessary controversy in the Court.
"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," the bench underscored.
The judges said that Ojha's conduct in attempting to castigate the character of the sitting judge did not seem to be in the exercise of the 'right of fair and reasonable criticism.'
"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', the bench said.
Quite clearly, the applicant-contemnor seems to have a private grudge against 'X' because on the information provided by her to the Chief Justice, the present Criminal Suo Motu Contempt proceedings have been initiated against him, the judges underlined.
Further, the judges noted that Ojha appeared in the instant contempt proceedings as a party-in-person yet 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, filled in their appearances along with him.
Professional misconduct committed by advocates who assisted Ojha
As regards these advocates, the bench said they have committed 'professional misconduct' inasmuch as they have lent support in their capacity as an advocate to a party appearing in-person.
"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," the bench pointed out.
However, for now, the bench refrained from initiating any proceedings against all these lawyers, stating, "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."
At the end, the bench directed the Registry to register a Suo Motu criminal contempt of court case against Ojha and issue a show-cause notice to him under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Further, Ojha is ordered to file his reply to the said notice by the next date of hearing, which is scheduled at 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 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)