2026 Supreme(SC) 422

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Nilesh C. Ojha – Appellants
Versus
High Court of Judicature At Bombay Through Secretary & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 5673-5674 of 2025
Decided On : 20-04-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Contempt of Court – An advocate, more than any other stakeholder in justice delivery system, bears heightened duty to uphold dignity of institution and to act with circumspection in matters touching upon administration of justice.
(2) Clear distinction must be maintained between assailing correctness of a judicial decision and personalizing grievance by attributing motives to Judge concerned.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Article 215 – Contempt of Court – Judicial independence forms a foundational and non-derogable feature of Constitutional scheme – Strength and legitimacy of Judiciary lie not in any capacity to command or compel, but in confidence of people in its integrity, neutrality, and institutional independence – Any unfounded or intemperate allegations impugning integrity, motives, or impartiality of Judiciary, whether directed against the institution or an individual Judge, assume serious significance – While fair, reasoned, and bona fide criticism of judicial decisions remains legitimate facet of democratic discourse, reckless aspersions strike at very foundation of judicial independence by undermining trust upon which authority of Judiciary ultimately rests – A litigant aggrieved by a judicial order is entitled to question its correctness before a higher forum – However, legitimacy of such challenge rests upon civilised and temperate criticism of judicial determination and not upon insinuations directed at integrity or neutrality of Judge – Clear distinction must be maintained between assailing correctness of a judicial decision and personalizing grievance by attributing motives to Judge concerned. (Paras 26, 28 and 29)

(B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Constitution of India – Article 215 – Contempt of Court – Appellant-contemnor has levelled serious imputations against a sitting Judge of High Court – Appellant-contemnor, being a member of Bar and an officer of Court, was under heightened obligation to conduct himself in a manner befitting dignity of legal profession and institutional sanctity of judicial process – Members of Bar occupy a position of privilege and responsibility in administration of justice, and their conduct, both within and outside courtroom, must reflect restraint, sobriety and fidelity to ethical standards governing profession – Course adopted by appellant-contemnor in addressing a press conference and publicly voicing allegations against a sitting Judge cannot be viewed lightly – Allegations of this character, if left unchecked, possess an inherent tendency to erode public confidence in administration of justice – Court not inclined to interdict contempt proceedings at this stage. (Paras 30, 31, 32, 34, 35 and 36)

Facts of the case:

High Court, vide impugned order dated 16th October, 2025, dismissed Interim Application No.3843 of 2025, holding that if appellant-contemnor claimed that precedents relied upon had been overruled, appropriate remedy lay in assailing the judgment before a higher forum. Court further held that the prayer seeking recusal of the Chief Justice and disqualification of the five Judges constituting the larger Bench, on the ground of an alleged conflict of interest, was wholly frivolous, misconceived and amounted to a sheer abuse of process of Court. High Court also cautioned appellant-contemnor that, in event his conduct is found to be inappropriate, it would be constrained to direct that he be taken into custody.

Findings of Court:

No case for interference with impugned orders is made out. The issues raised can appropriately be examined by High Court in accordance with law.

Result : Appeals dismissed.