Bombay High Court initiates contempt proceedings against advocate Ojha for defaming sitting judge

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

The court has directed Mr. Ojha to submit a written statement within four weeks explaining why a formal charge should not be framed under the Contempt of Courts Act. The matter is scheduled for further hearing 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 observed that Mr. Ojha’s actions went beyond the bounds of fair criticism and appeared aimed at undermining the integrity and credibility of the judge. The court noted that his statements were intended to embarrass the judge and deter her from performing judicial duties. 

The Bench highlighted that Mr. Ojha used terms like “forgery, bias, discriminatory conduct, dishonesty, and conspiracy,” which were defamatory and calculated to erode public confidence in the judiciary. The Bench also clarified that in suo motu proceedings, the judge bringing the matter to the court’s attention cannot be impleaded as a respondent. 

This latest contempt case follows a press conference held by Mr. Ojha on April 1, 2025, in connection with a petition filed by Satish Salian, seeking a fresh investigation into the 2020 death of his daughter, Disha Salian. In the press conference, Mr. Ojha accused Justice Revati Mohite Dere and former Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyay of corruption, alleged conflict of interest, and claimed the sitting judge was unfit to hear the petition due to alleged political connections. 

In response to the press conference, the High Court had directed YouTube and Marathi news channel ABP Majha to immediately remove videos containing Mr. Ojha’s statements, describing the content as “scandalous and defamatory.” The court emphasised that publishing such statements amounted to scandalising the authority of the court and interfering with the administration of justice. 

The court also cautioned the 15 advocates representing Mr. Ojha to remain vigilant about their professional duties, reminding them that conduct permissible in society may not be acceptable for legal professionals. The Bench stressed that attacks on judicial integrity could create public distrust and affect the reputation of sitting judges.