In a significant development, the Bombay High Court has taken a firm stance against attempts to malign the judiciary, directing the immediate takedown of a video in which advocate Nilesh Ojha made serious allegations against sitting judges, including Justice Revati Mohite-Dere. The video, originally aired on YouTube and the Marathi news channel ABP Majha, led the High Court to initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the dignity and authority of the judiciary.
Background: The Controversial Video and Its Allegations
The controversy stems from a press conference held on February 1, 2025, where advocate Nilesh Ojha addressed the media regarding a writ petition filed by Satish Saliyan, the father of the late Disha Saliyan, who was associated with actor Sushant Singh Rajput and died under mysterious circumstances in June 2020. During the press conference, Ojha made explosive claims alleging that Justice Mohite-Dere had familial ties with the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and was, therefore, disqualified from hearing the petition.
Ojha further claimed that he had applied for sanction to prosecute both Justice Mohite-Dere and former Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya, even alleging that he had received an oral sanction for the same. Additionally, Ojha accused Justice Mohite-Dere of committing forgery in the high-profile Chanda Kochhar case, thereby creating an alleged conflict of interest and bias.
Court’s Response: Strong Condemnation and Takedown Orders
A five-judge full bench led by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, and comprising Justice AS Chandurkar, Justice MS Sonak, Justice Ravindra Ghughe, and Justice AS Gadkari, responded strongly to the content of the video. The bench observed that the allegations were scandalous and amounted to an attempt to undermine the judiciary’s authority and integrity.
“The statements appear to have been made deliberately to scandalise the authority of Court and the Judge,” the court noted. “The act of publishing interviews amount to scandalising the court and defamatory. Such allegations tend to lower the image of the court.”
The court found the statements prima facie contemptuous under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, stating that the video’s publication was a clear interference in the administration of justice.
Legal Grounds for Contempt
The court invoked the principles laid down in contempt jurisprudence to determine that Ojha’s statements were not just defamatory but directly impacted the credibility of the judiciary. By opting to address the media instead of filing a proper recusal application before the court, Ojha was seen as attempting to bypass judicial protocol.
The bench observed:
“Ojha was under obligation to make submissions seeking to recuse the judge. However, instead of making a submission on April 2, Mr. Ojha held a press conference on April 1.”
This deliberate choice to go public, rather than using the legal avenues available, compounded the contemptuous nature of his actions.
Court Directions and Future Proceedings
Considering the severity of the issue, the Bombay High Court issued several directions:
- Immediate removal of the video from YouTube and ABP Majha.
- Prohibition on re-uploading, re-circulating, or recreating the video in any form during the pendency of the contempt proceedings.
- Issuance of criminal contempt notice to advocate Nilesh Ojha.
- Direction to include the Bar Council of India, Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, Bombay Bar Association, Advocates Association of Western India, YouTube, and ABP Majha as respondents in the matter.
- Appointment of Senior Advocates Darius Khambatta and Milind Sathe as Amicus Curiae.
- Request for assistance from the Attorney General of India and Additional Solicitor General.
The next hearing is scheduled for April 29, 2025, at 2:30 PM, where the court will further deliberate on the matter.
Legal Analysis: Balancing Free Speech and Judicial Integrity
This case raises important questions about the balance between free speech and contempt of court. While criticism of judicial decisions is permissible in a democratic society, personal attacks and baseless allegations against judges cross the line into contempt. The judiciary, as one of the pillars of Indian democracy, must be protected from efforts to scandalize its image or undermine public confidence.
The Contempt of Courts Act is a crucial mechanism to safeguard the judicial process. In this case, Ojha’s actions — holding a press conference instead of seeking judicial recusal and levelling serious accusations in a public forum — demonstrate a disregard for judicial protocol and potentially amount to professional misconduct.
Furthermore, Ojha’s claims of receiving oral sanction to prosecute judges are legally dubious. Indian law requires written sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) or applicable provisions of the Judges (Protection) Act before initiating legal proceedings against sitting judges.
The Role of Media and Digital Platforms
The court’s directive to platforms like YouTube and ABP Majha to take down and cease circulation of the video underscores the responsibility of media platforms in curbing the spread of defamatory or contemptuous content. While freedom of the press is essential, it must be exercised within the bounds of law and responsibility.
Digital platforms have increasingly become forums for misinformation, sensationalism, and unverified claims. This order sets a strong precedent for regulating defamatory content against judicial institutions on such platforms.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s strong response to advocate Nilesh Ojha’s defamatory statements sends a clear message: attempts to malign the judiciary will not be tolerated. By initiating contempt proceedings and ordering immediate action against the defamatory video, the court has reaffirmed the primacy of judicial decorum and accountability of legal professionals.
As the matter proceeds further on April 29, legal observers will be watching closely to see how the court balances freedom of speech, contempt law, and media regulation in the digital age.
