Bombay High Court initiates contempt proceedings in opposition to advocate Ojha for defaming sitting choose

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (September 18, 2025) has initiated a second suo motu prison contempt continuing in opposition to advocate Nilesh Ojha for allegedly making “disparaging, scandalous and defamatory” statements in opposition to Justice Revati Mohite Dere, a sitting choose of the High Court.

The courtroom has directed Mr. Ojha to submit a written assertion inside 4 weeks explaining why a proper cost shouldn’t be framed beneath the Contempt of Courts Act. The matter is scheduled for additional listening to on October 16. 

A five-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justices M.S. Sonak, Ravindra Ghughe, A.S. Gadkari, and B.P. Colabawalla noticed that Mr. Ojha’s actions went past the bounds of honest criticism and appeared aimed toward undermining the integrity and credibility of the choose. The courtroom famous that his statements have been supposed to embarrass the choose and deter her from performing judicial duties. 

The Bench highlighted that Mr. Ojha used phrases like “forgery, bias, discriminatory conduct, dishonesty, and conspiracy,” which have been defamatory and calculated to erode public confidence within the judiciary. The Bench additionally clarified that in suo motu proceedings, the choose bringing the matter to the courtroom’s consideration can’t be impleaded as a respondent. 

This newest contempt case follows a press convention held by Mr. Ojha on April 1, 2025, in reference to a petition filed by Satish Salian, in search of a recent investigation into the 2020 demise of his daughter, Disha Salian. In the press convention, Mr. Ojha accused Justice Revati Mohite Dere and former Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyay of corruption, alleged battle of curiosity, and claimed the sitting choose was unfit to listen to the petition because of alleged political connections. 

In response to the press convention, the High Court had directed YouTube and Marathi information channel ABP Majha to instantly take away movies containing Mr. Ojha’s statements, describing the content material as “scandalous and defamatory.” The courtroom emphasised that publishing such statements amounted to scandalising the authority of the courtroom and interfering with the administration of justice. 

The courtroom additionally cautioned the 15 advocates representing Mr. Ojha to stay vigilant about their skilled duties, reminding them that conduct permissible in society is probably not acceptable for authorized professionals. The Bench careworn that assaults on judicial integrity might create public mistrust and have an effect on the status of sitting judges.