Scandalising allegations against a sitting judge through public statements can constitute contempt; grievances must be pursued through legal channels, not media.

on

Scandalising allegations against a sitting judge through public statements can constitute contempt; grievances must be pursued through legal channels, not media.

Facts
Contempt proceedings arising from allegations against a judge

The appellant-contemnor, an advocate, made public allegations in a press conference against a sitting High Court Judge (“Justice X”), questioning her impartiality in a pending matter.

Suo motu contempt proceedings were initiated by the High Court. The appellant sought impleadment of the concerned Judge and discharge from proceedings, which were rejected. The High Court also initiated additional contempt proceedings based on further allegations made in pleadings.

Issues Framed
Whether public allegations imputing bias or impropriety against a sitting judge, outside judicial forums, justify contempt proceedings and whether the High Court’s exercise of contempt jurisdiction warranted interference.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) Judicial Independence & Public Confidence
The Court emphasized that the judiciary’s legitimacy rests on public trust, and “erosion of credibility… is the greatest threat” (Para 27).

(b) Limits of Criticism
While fair criticism is permissible, imputing motives without basis crosses into impermissible territory (Para 28–29).

(c) Conduct of Advocates
Advocates bear a heightened duty of restraint. Publicly airing allegations through media, instead of legal remedies, is “wholly inconsistent” with professional ethics (Para 31–32).

(d) Nature of Allegations
The allegations were not confined to legal critique but attributed motives without substantiation, raising serious institutional concerns (Para 33).

(e) Contempt Jurisdiction Justified (Prima Facie)
Such conduct has the tendency to “scandalise the institution” and undermine justice administration, warranting continuation of proceedings (Para 34–35).

Held
No interference with High Court’s orders. Contempt proceedings to continue; issues to be decided on merits by High Court. Appeals dismissed.

Ratio
Unsubstantiated public allegations imputing bias or impropriety against a sitting judge—especially by an advocate—constitute conduct capable of scandalising the court, and such grievances must be pursued through judicial remedies rather than public platforms.Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 390
Decided on: 20 April 2026
Case Title: Nilesh C. Ojha v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Vikram Nath, J.; Sandeep Mehta, J.