The Association observed that although the order dated 17.09.2025 contains “several major mistakes,” the very opportunity extended to Adv. Nilesh Ojha to place his defence and material on record is described as a welcome step. It is also in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Constitution Bench in Subramanian Swamy v. Arun Shourie & Another, (2014) 12 SCC 344, as well as the rulings in Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1188, and Adv. Mahmood Pracha v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1029.
Earlier, in a similar precedent, when faced with a contempt notice, Adv. Prashant Bhushan had placed on record documentary material alleging corruption against eight Chief Justices of India in connection with their judicial orders passed in various matters. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1188, accepted his explanation and consequently dropped the proceedings. However, the Association has reminded that despite the submission of proofs, the matter in Prashant Bhushan’s case was consigned to “cold storage” for nearly twelve years. They have therefore expressed the hope that such a course of delay and inaction will not be repeated in the present proceedings.
On 17.09.2025, the Five-Judge Bench was pleased to issue notice to Adv. Nilesh Ojha, directing him to file a reply-affidavit cum statement of defence in respect of his allegations of perjury, forgery, and bias against Justice Revathi Mohite Dere, coupled with the further contention that such perjury was committed with the ulterior motive of falsely implicating the Applicant, Adv. Nilesh Ojha.
The Association’s letter highlights the following specific instances of criminal misconduct attributed to Justice Revathi Mohite Dere, and further records that video recordings along with other documentary evidence substantiating these allegations shall be duly submitted before the Hon’ble Court :-
(i) Forgery in the Chanda Kochhar bail matter: Justice Revathi Mohite Dere, while granting bail to Smt. Chanda Kochhar, in Criminal Writ Petition (St.) No. 22494 of 2022, deliberately omitted to record Section 409 IPC as an offence punishable with life imprisonment and falsely noted in her order dated 09.01.2023 that the offences were punishable with a maximum of seven years’ imprisonment. This deliberate misrepresentation was made to bring the case within the ratio of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. Furthermore, the learned Judge failed to consider the order passed by the Special CBI Judge, thereby acting in violation of the binding guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Pratap Yadav v. Mitra Sen Yadav, (2003) 1 SCC 15.
(ii) Forgery in Dilip Mohite bail matter: Justice Revathi Mohite Dere, in granting bail to NCP MLA Dilip Mohite in ABA No. 1621 of 2019, by orders dated 26.07.2019 and 21.08.2019, deliberately concealed the fact that Section 307 IPC had been invoked in light of evidence showing that the accused conspired to kill a police officer and attack a police station. The order dated 19.07.2019, which recorded these material findings, was suppressed to facilitate bail, thereby constituting judicial dishonesty and fraud on power, as recognised in Muzaffar Husain v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 567 and Kamisetty Pedda Venkata Subbamma v. Chinna Kummagandla Venkataiah, 2004 SCC OnLine AP 1009.
(iii) Conflict of interest owing to family ties: That Smt. Vandana Chavan, former Member of Parliament and leader of the NCP (Sharad Pawar faction), is the real sister of Hon’ble Justice Revati Mohite Dere, and it is alleged that the learned Judge has granted unwarranted reliefs to persons associated with that party while adopting a discriminatory approach against those unconnected with it.
Recently, a Division Bench of the High Court, in Mohd. Nazer v. Union Territory, MANU/KR/3881/2022, suspended a Judge and issued notice of perjury against him after finding that he had created forged records of court proceedings with the object of falsely implicating the petitioner.
Similarly, in Raman Lal v. State, 2000 SCC OnLine Raj 226, the Court directed registration of an FIR against a sitting High Court Judge on the ground of his involvement in the false implication of an advocate.
These precedents reinforce the settled position that even members of the higher judiciary are not immune from accountability where there are credible allegations of perjury, forgery, and abuse of judicial office.
The Association concluded by stating that no judge, however high, is above the Constitution and the law, and expressed confidence that the Chief Justice will ensure the matter is pursued to its logical conclusion without delay.
