Supreme Court refuses to shield lawyer after ‘unfounded allegations’ against Bombay High Court judge

A clear distinction must be maintained between assailing the correctness of a judicial decision and personalising the grievance by attributing motives to the Judge concerned, said the Supreme Court. (Image enhanced using AI)

Criticism of judiciary not upon insinuations

• A litigant aggrieved by a judicial order is undoubtedly entitled to question its correctness before a higher forum.
• However, the legitimacy of such a challenge rests upon civilised and temperate criticism of the judicial determination and not upon insinuations directed at the integrity or neutrality of the Judge.
• A clear distinction must be maintained between assailing the correctness of a judicial decision and personalising the grievance by attributing motives to the Judge concerned.
• Members of the Bar occupy a position of privilege and responsibility in the administration of justice, and their conduct, both within and outside the courtroom, must reflect restraint, sobriety and fidelity to the ethical standards governing the profession.
• The act of carrying a pending judicial controversy into the public domain in a manner that tends to sensationalise the proceedings or scandalise the institution or its constitutional component, i.e., the Judges, is wholly inconsistent with the discipline expected of an advocate.

• Professional ethics require that grievances against judicial orders must be ventilated through established legal remedies before appropriate judicial forums, rather than through public commentary capable of influencing perception about the fairness or integrity of the judicial process.
• The manner in which the press conference was convened and the allegations were projected is, prima facie, unbecoming of a member of law professional and falls short of the standards of propriety, restraint, professional, and ethical responsibility which the legal profession demands.
• An advocate, more than any other stakeholder in the justice delivery system, bears a heightened duty to uphold the dignity of the institution and to act with circumspection in matters touching upon the administration of justice.
• Public confidence in the judiciary constitutes an indispensable foundation of the rule of law, and any attempt to scandalise or sensationalise judicial proceedings undermines that very foundation.

From press conference to courtroom

The case traces back to April 1, 2025, when advocate Ojha addressed a press conference a day before his writ petition filed on behalf of a client seeking a CBI probe into a death was listed before the Bombay High Court.

During the media interaction, advocate Ojha made allegations against a sitting judge (referred to in the judgment as “Justice X”), suggesting that she should not hear the matter due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The following day, April 2, 2025, the matter was mentioned before a division bench of the high court, which directed administrative steps in line with roster allocation.

High court takes suo motu cognisance

On April 4, 2025, the concerned judge wrote to the chief justice of the Bombay High Court, stating that the allegations had tarnished her reputation and impugned her standing within the judiciary.
Acting on the letter, the chief justice took suo motu cognisance and constituted a five-judge bench to examine the issue.

On April 8, 2025, the high court observed that the statements made in the press conference had the tendency to scandalise the court and interfere with judicial proceedings.

A show cause notice was issued on April 9, 2025, formally initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Ojha.

Applications, escalation before high court

In the months that followed, Ojha filed multiple applications, including one seeking discharge from the contempt proceedings and another seeking to implead the judge concerned as a party.

On September 17, 2025, the high court rejected the impleadment plea, holding that a judge who merely provides information to the chief justice cannot be treated as a complainant or necessary party in contempt proceedings.

Significantly, the court also took note of fresh allegations made in the application and directed registration of a separate contempt case.

A subsequent plea seeking recall of the order was dismissed on October 16, 2025, with the high court terming the objections including allegations of bias as “frivolous” and an abuse of the process of law.

Supreme Court on judicial independence

Upholding the high court’s approach, the Supreme Court emphasised that judicial independence is a foundational feature of the Constitution and rests on public confidence.

The Supreme Court noted that the legitimacy of courts flows not from coercive authority but from the trust reposed in them by the people, making any attempt to erode that trust a serious concern.

Unfounded allegations ‘serious threat’

The top court cautioned that unfounded or intemperate allegations against judges whether against an individual or the institution carry the potential to diminish the credibility of the justice delivery system.

While fair and reasoned criticism remains permissible, the Supreme Court made it clear that reckless allegations without basis fall outside constitutional protection.

Clear line between criticism, contempt

Drawing a distinction, the apex court reiterated that litigants have the right to challenge judicial orders before higher forums, but such challenges must remain within the bounds of propriety.

The Supreme Court stressed that criticism must target the decision, not the judge and must avoid attributing motives without evidence.

Higher responsibility on advocates

The judgment places particular emphasis on the conduct expected from lawyers, noting that advocates, as officers of the court, carry a heightened duty to uphold institutional dignity.

The Supreme Court observed that taking allegations to the public domain through a press conference, especially in a pending matter was inconsistent with professional ethics and the standards of restraint required of legal practitioners.

It further held that grievances against judicial actions must be pursued through established legal remedies rather than public commentary capable of influencing perceptions about judicial integrity.

Allegations found to cross permissible limits

On a prima facie view, the Supreme Court found that the allegations made by Ojha went beyond legal criticism and extended to imputing motives without any demonstrable foundation.

Such assertions, particularly against a sitting judge, require a high degree of responsibility and credible substantiation, the court noted.

Warning on erosion of public trust

The bench warned that if such allegations are left unchecked, they could erode public confidence in the administration of justice.

While accountability and scrutiny are essential in a democracy, imputations against judges must be based on unimpeachable material and pursued strictly in accordance with law.

Appeals dismissed

Concluding that no case for interference was made out, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and allowed the high court to proceed with the contempt proceedings.

It clarified that its observations were prima facie in nature and should not influence the high court’s final adjudication on merits.