LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Nilesh C. Ojha v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay & Ors.

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 390Decided 20 Apr 2026
Crl.A. No.-005673-005674 - 2025
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

Advocate Nilesh C. Ojha was facing criminal suo motu contempt proceedings before the Bombay High Court after he held a press conference casting aspersions on a sitting High Court judge, alleging bias, in connection with a writ petition he had filed on a client's behalf. The High Court's Full Bench rejected his application to implead the judge as a party-respondent and to be discharged from the contempt case, and separately registered a fresh suo motu contempt case against him; it also dismissed his application to recall that order. Ojha challenged both High Court orders before the Supreme Court under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that, as a member of the Bar and officer of the court, Ojha was under a heightened obligation to conduct himself with restraint and to raise grievances against judicial orders through proper legal channels rather than through public press conferences that could scandalize the institution or erode public confidence in the judiciary. It found that his allegations against the judge went beyond pointing out legal or factual errors and instead imputed motives without demonstrable foundation, which, if left unchecked, risked undermining judicial independence. The Court declined to interfere with the High Court's orders at this interlocutory stage, clarifying that its observations were only a prima facie assessment for deciding the present appeals and would not influence the High Court's independent adjudication of the contempt proceedings on merits. The appeals were accordingly dismissed, with a request that the High Court proceed expeditiously.

Lesson Learnt

Lawyers cannot use press conferences or public commentary to air grievances against sitting judges or pending judicial matters; established legal remedies must be used instead, and doing otherwise can itself expose the advocate to contempt proceedings. The heightened duty of restraint applies specifically to officers of the court because of their special role in preserving public confidence in the justice system.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Contempt of Court

Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Mansi Brar vs. Mohit Singh

The Court found that the subject properties had already been sold before the status quo order was passed. The respondent did not disclose this in his reply and instead relied on other grounds, and the exact position emerged only after the Court directed him to file an affidavit. The Court held that the earlier order was passed on the basis of this non-disclosure, and that he had also wilfully breached his undertaking. He was held guilty of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The text of the judgment supplied does not show a sentence or penalty.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Dr. Naresh Kumar vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors.

The Court found the respondents had in fact complied with the specific direction in the earlier order: the petitioner had been promoted to CMO (OG) as ordered, and had even been further promoted to CMO (SG) since then. Since the scope of contempt proceedings is confined to the exact directions given in the order allegedly violated, and the order never addressed promotion to DIG, the Court held the petitioner could not use contempt proceedings to expand relief to a promotion issue never covered by the original order, and dismissed the petition.

Decided 24 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Bharat Singh Rawat vs. Dr. Poonam Singh Rawat

Relying on Supreme Court precedent (Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda), the Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against an order actually punishing someone for contempt, not against an order merely directing compliance. Since no punishment had been imposed, the impugned order was not appealable under Section 19, and the appeal was disposed of, with liberty given to the appellant to separately seek clubbing of the multiple pending cases before the single judge.

Decided 22 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Naima Khatoon vs. Utpal Chakraborty & Anr.

The Court found that two specific cheques relied upon had never actually been presented for encashment, so no contempt arose from them. However, a receipt dated 30.11.2017 for Rs. 1,00,320 remained unclear as to whether that amount was actually collected. The Court did not impose a contempt penalty but directed that if the amount had indeed been realized by the respondents in violation of the earlier orders, it must be refunded to the petitioner with 12% annual interest within eight weeks.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Ram Niwas

The High Court declined to interfere, holding it saw no basis to exercise its certiorari jurisdiction over what were essentially procedural orders granting further time and recording the government's own officers' assurances of compliance: assurances given while the government was represented by two counsel, not under any unfair coercion. The Court clarified its order was not an opinion on the merits of the underlying contempt petition, which the Tribunal remains free to decide.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Teena Kapoor vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

The Division Bench found that although the appellant knew of the pending litigation when she bought the flat and chose not to join those proceedings, she still faced the imminent threat of demolition without having been heard. The Court therefore directed that no demolition take place until her impleadment applications are decided by the Single Judge, permitted her to also seek impleadment in the related civil suit, and recorded her undertaking not to carry out any further construction in the meantime.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case