The Division Bench of the High Court outrightly rejected the reference for contempt made by Judge Senior Division Judge Sh. S.B. Patel against Sh. Manubhai Patel.
The complainant, Sh. Manubhai Patel, now intends to initiate criminal prosecution against Judge Sh. S. B. Patil under Sections 220, 211, 209, 409, 500, and 501 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for filing false and frivolous contempt charges.
Sh. Manubhai is also going to file a defamation suit for Rs.500 Crores damages against Judge Patil, told Adv.Nilesh Ojha, National President of Indian Bar Association.
Advocates Ishwarlal Agarwal and Nilesh Ojha recently filed a historic Rs. 5 lakh crore defamation suit against Mr. Adar Poonawalla, Mr. Cyrus Poonawalla, and the Serum Institute of India in a case related with deadly side effects of Covishiled vaccine.
The Indian Bar Association (IBA) welcomed the Bombay High Court’s order in the current case and has called for the immediate dismissal of Senior Division Judge Sh. S.B. Patil to uphold judicial accountability.
On earlier occasions, Sh. Manubhai Patel had successfully obtained significant orders from the Supreme Court against judicial misconduct. In one such instance, the Supreme Court issued a show-cause notice for contempt against Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Sh. A.P. Kanorkar of Borivali, (Mumbai), in a petition filed by Sh. Manubhai Patel. The judge later tendered an apology before the Supreme Court, underscoring the judiciary’s resolute stance on addressing and curbing the misuse of authority.
Mumbai:- In a highly significant ruling, the Division Bench of Bombay High Court recently reprimanded Sh. S.B. Patil, a Senior Division Civil Judge in Thane, for misusing the contempt of court jurisdiction for the allegations of corruption made personally against him.
Judge Patil had filed a contempt petition against Manubhai Patel, a litigant who accused him of deliberately delaying his case in exchange for bribes. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in its ruling, dismissed the contempt reference forwarded by the Judge S. B. Patil stating that the allegations against the Judge were personal in nature and did not constitute contempt of court.
The Court’s decision has far-reaching implications for judicial accountability, transparency, and the right to expose judicial misconduct. It is noteworthy that the there are various cases which highlights the misuse of contempt provisions by the corrupt and inefficient, incompetent Judges to silence those who criticize or expose their actions. The ruling emphasizes that the contempt of court law should not be weaponized to protect judges from allegations of corruption or misconduct.
1. Background to the Case:
1.1. The case arose when Manubhai Patel, senior citizen and a renowned contractor based in Mumbai, in a long-running Civil Suit, accused Judge S.B. Patil of deliberately delaying his case. Sh. Patel, frustrated with the judge’s actions, publicly asked the judge, “How much bribe money do you want to decide my case fairly?”.
1.2. In response, Judge Patil filed a contempt petition, claiming that Manubhai’s remarks amounted to interference with the judicial process. However, the Bombay High Court, after reviewing the evidence and material on record, found that the allegations were personal grievances and accusations against the Judge and it is not a legitimate case for contempt.
2. Supreme Court’s Stance on Contempt Jurisdiction and Judicial Accountability:
2.1. The Bombay High Court’s ruling is in line with several Supreme Court precedents, which have consistently held that the contempt of court law is not designed to shield judges from allegations of corruption, misconduct, or inefficiency. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that judicial officers must be held accountable for their actions, and citizens have the right to expose corruption within the judiciary without the fear of retaliatory contempt actions.
2.2. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently refused to entertain requests from judges seeking contempt action against litigants and advocates on frivolous or personal grounds. These judgments have criticized the hypersensitivity of judges and condemned the misuse of contempt jurisdiction to silence dissent or criticism. Some landmark judgments are :-
· Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash, (1998) 4 SCC 577,
· [Suo Moto (Court’s on its own Motion) Vs. T.G Bagul 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 4853,
· D.D. Samudra v. Vaziralli (P) Ltd. 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 382.
· P.K. Ghosh v. J.G. Rajput, (1995) 6 SCC 744
· Rama Surat Singh Vs. Shiv Kumar Pandey 1969 SCC OnLine All 226,
· Court on its Own Motion Vs. Ram Piara Comrade 1972 SCC OnLine P&H 277,
· Subramanian Swamy v. Arun Shourie (2014) 12 SCC 344
2.3. In a landmark precedent, the Supreme Court in the case of R. K. Jain (2010) 8 SCC 281 , imposed costs of Rs. 2 lakhs on a Bar Association (Indirect Tax Practitioners Association), for filing a frivolous contempt petition against activist reporter Sh. R.K. Jain, who had exposed judicial malpractices. The Bar Association, in a bid to shield the accused judges and intimidate the activist reporter, filed the petition. However, the Supreme Court ruled that R.K. Jain’s publications were truthful and the act of exposing malpractices in judicial institutions is in fact a part of Constitutional duty of every citizen Article 51A(h), which enjoins citizens to develop a scientific temper, humanism, and a spirit of inquiry and reform.
2.4. These judgments emphasize the judiciary’s commitment to upholding accountability and discouraging the misuse of contempt laws for personal vendettas, reaffirming the protection of free speech and the right to expose corruption within the judicial system.
2.5. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy vs. Arun Shourie (AIR 2014 SC 3020) reaffirmed the law laid down in the case of R. K. Jain ‘s case and further ruled that the contempt of court law is not intended to suppress criticism or limit freedom of speech when it comes to exposing judicial corruption. The Court stated that the right to criticize judges is a constitutional right.
It is ruled by the supreme court that;
“11. [….] Long back the Privy Council in Ambard[4] held that reasoned or legitimate criticism of judges or courts is not contempt of court. The Privy Council held:
“The path of criticism is a public way; the wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men.”
12. In Wills[5] the High Court of Australia suggested that truth could be a defence if the comment was also for the public benefit. It said,
“…The revelation of truth – at all events when its revelation is for the public benefit – and the making of a fair criticism based on fact do not amount to a contempt of court though the truth revealed or the criticism made is such as to deprive the court or judge of public confidence…”.”
2.6. In Rama Surat Singh vs. Shiv Kumar Pandey (1969), the Supreme Court settled the principle that judicial officers cannot use the contempt provisions to cover up their corruption or inefficiency. The Court ruled that if a judge is found to be corrupt and sells justice then the public has the right to file complaints and expose the wrongdoing, and they should not be punished for doing so under contempt of court provisions. In fact such complaints are protecting the courts reputation.
2.7. The constitution bench in the case of Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Madras, 1952 SCR 425, ruled as under;
[Scandalous News published against a Judge about the corruption]
“ 12. If the allegations were true it would be to the benefit of the public to bring these matters in to light”
3. Judges Are Not Immune from Prosecution: They Can Be Prosecuted Under Criminal, Civil, and Contempt Jurisdictions
3.1. In a landmark case, Justice C. S. Karnan was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for committing contempt of court. The Supreme Court ruled that any citizen has the right to file a contempt petition against judges, and the court is bound to examine such petitions. (C.S. Karnan, In Re, (2017) 7 SCC 1)
3.2. In 2003, Delhi High Court Judge Shameet Mukherjee was arrested by the CBI for accepting a bribe to pass a favorable order. (Shameet Mukherjee Vs CBI 2003-DRJ-70-327)
3.3. High Court Judge Nirmal Yadav was charge-sheeted by the CBI for accepting a bribe of Rs. 15 Lakhs in exchange for a favorable order. (Smt. Justice Nirmal Yadav Vs. C.B.I. 2011 (4) RCR (Criminal) 809)
3.4. High Court Judge Raman Lal was prosecuted and demoted to a lower court after being found guilty of corruption. (Raman Lal Vs. State 2001 Cri. L. J. 800)
3.5. Several Sessions and District Judges, Public Prosecutors, Government Pleaders, and advocates for the accused were prosecuted for forgery and corruption for favorable orders to the accused. (K. Rama Reddy Vs. State 1998 (3) ALD 305)
3.6. Two Magistrates were arrested by the CID for accepting bribes for passing favorable orders. (Jagat Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. MANU/GJ/0361/2017)
3.7. A judge was prosecuted for manipulating records and committing forgery of court proceedings to harm another judicial officer. (Govind Mehta Vs State AIR 1971 SC 1708)
3.8. Many judges have been prosecuted and sentenced under contempt. Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 specifically allows for such actions. (Baradakanta Misra v. Bhimsen Dixit, (1973) 1 SCC 446; Prominent Hotels 2015 SCC On Line Del; re: M.P. Dwivedi AIR 1996 SC 2299)
3.9. Case laws helpful for filing civil contempt against judges who refuse to follow binding precedents and indulge in judicial adventurism include: Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering (1997) 6 SCC 450; Yogesh Athawale Vs. Vikram Jadhav 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 3443; Medical Council of India Vs G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust & Others (2018) 12 SCC 564; Sunderjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra (1989) 3 SCC 396; Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1; Smt. Prabha Sharma Vs. Sunil Goyal and Ors. (2017) 11 SCC 77.
3.10. The High Court issued a show-cause notice to an executive magistrate, an advocate for the accused, and a public prosecutor for creating forged records and evidence to acquit an accused of serious criminal offenses. (Kamlakar Nandram Bhavsar vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) ALL MR (Cri) 2640)
3.10. It is well-established that if a judge insults an advocate or uses intemperate language against any party, the judge is liable for action under Sections 500, 501, and 504 of the IPC, and can also be held in contempt. No sanction is required for the prosecution of such a judge. (B. S. Shambho Vs. T. S. Krishnaswamy AIR 1983 SC 64, Bindhi Singh vs M.S. Mandyal 1993 Cri. L.J. 499; Raman Lal vs State of Rajasthan 2000 SCC OnLine Raj 226; Harish Chandra Mishra vs The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ali Ahmed 1985 SCC OnLine Pat 213; H. Syama Sunder Rao 2007 Cr. L. J. 2626; Mohd. Shafi vs Chaudhary Oadir Bakhsh AIR 1949 Lah 270)
3.11. A discourteous judge is akin to an ill-tuned instrument in the courtroom, disrupting the entire judicial process. (R.K. Garg Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (1981) 3 SCC 166)
3.12. In Deelip Bhikaji Sonawne Vs. The State of Maharashtra (MANU/MH/0073/2003), the court ruled that the High Court, Supreme Court, and State have the authority to direct prosecution against judges, and they cannot claim protection from prosecution under the Judges Protection Act, 1985.
3.13. In High Court of Karnataka Vs. Jai Chaitanya Dasa & Others (2015) (3) AKR 627, the court ruled that a judge’s bad behavior has a rippling effect on the reputation of the judiciary as a whole.
3.14. The Constitution Bench in the case of K. Veeraswamy Vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655, while discussing the criminal prosecution of a Supreme Court judge, ruled that a corrupt judge must voluntarily resign from their post. The court noted:
“The judiciary has no power of the purse or the sword. It survives only by public confidence, and it is crucial for the stability of society that this confidence is not shaken. A judge whose character is clouded and whose standards of morality are in doubt may not have the judicial independence and may not command the confidence of the public. Such a judge must voluntarily withdraw from judicial work and administration.”
3.15. The Full Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that a judge can be held liable for corruption even if their order is upheld by the court, as judges may still take bribes for issuing lawful orders. (Sadhna Chaudhary vs State (2020) 11 SCC 760)
3.16. The right to challenge a judge’s order in court is distinct from the legal or departmental actions that can be taken against the judge. Both avenues of action are independent remedies. (Umesh Chandra Vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2006 (5) AWC 4519 ALL)
3.17. As per specific law laid down in Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj The Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago (1978) 2 WLR 902, Walmik s/o Deorao Bobde Vs. State 2001 ALLMR (Cri.)1731, and other cases, if a judge violates the law and breaches the fundamental rights of a citizen, even state authorities like the CBI or police, then the state is bound to compensate the victim. The judge, as an executive arm of the state, can also be held liable, with the state free to recover compensation from the erring judges, as per the law laid down in S. Nambi Narayanan Vs. Siby Mathews (2018) 10 SCC 804, Veena Sippy Vs. Narayan Dambre 2012 ALL MR (Cri.) 1263.
3.18. In Judge-I cases such as S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India AIR 1982 SC 149 and K.C. Chandy Vs. R. Balkrishna AIR 1986 Kar 116, as well as in the Constituent Assembly debates on Article 56 by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, breach of oath and violation of the constitution by judges is considered a serious offense, including acts of treason, bribery, and misdemeanors. A judge who permits their judgments to be influenced by irrelevant considerations commits a breach of their oath, and such cases can result in impeachment under Article 124(4)(5) of the Constitution.
3.19. It has also been ruled in numerous cases that acts of commission or omission by judges that fall outside the scope of their official duties are not protected, and they can be prosecuted without sanction. (C.S. Karnan, In Re, (2017) 7 SCC 1; Deelip Bhikaji Sonawne Vs. The State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/0073/2003; K. Veeraswamy Vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655; Raman Lal vs. State of Rajasthan 2001 CRI. L. J. 800; Smt. Justice Nirmal Yadav Vs. C.B.I. 2011 (4) RCR (Criminal) 809; Jagat Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 4517; Govind Mehta v. State of Bihar, (1971) 3 SCC 329)
4. Exposing Judicial Corruption: A Long-Standing Struggle:
4.1. The case involving Manubhai Patel and Judge S.B. Patel is not an isolated incident. Over the years, several activists, lawyers, and citizens have faced harassment and threats from corrupt judges, their agents, or sycophantic Bar Associations for exposing judicial corruption and misconduct. These groups have used contempt proceedings as a tool to intimidate those who dare to challenge the system or uncover judicial malpractices.
4.2. Prominent figures such as Adv. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Dushyant Dave, Adv. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, Adv. Nilesh Ojha, Adv. Vijay Kurle, Sh. Rashid Khan Pathan, Adv. Subhash Jha, Adv. Partho Sarkar, Sh. Mursalin Sheikh, and many other activists have faced severe retaliation for their unwavering efforts to expose corruption, malpractice, and other forms of misconduct in judicial institutions. These individuals, many of whom are legal experts or seasoned activists, have been targets of harassment, threats, and legal challenges as they have sought to hold the judicial system accountable. Despite these challenges and the often hostile environment they operate in, they have remained resolute in their commitment to serve the nation and work towards ensuring that the judiciary remains free from corruption, arrogance, and malpractice. Their tireless efforts have played an essential role in highlighting the need for transparency, accountability, and judicial reform.
4.3. The movement for judicial accountability continues to be led by key figures such as Adv. Ishwarlal Agarwal, President of the Supreme Court Lawyers Association, Adv. Vivek Ramteke, along with Adv. Nilesh Ojha, National President of the Indian Bar Association, and Adv. Vijay Kurle, President of the Maharashtra and Goa State Chapter. These esteemed leaders are at the forefront of ongoing initiatives aimed at overhauling a judicial system that, at times, has turned a blind eye to corruption, criminal offenses, and judicial dishonesty by the Judges at all levels including Chief Justice of India.
4.4. Their efforts are particularly focused on addressing the misconduct of judges at all levels, including the highest office in the judiciary, such as the Former Chief Justice of India, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud. Through their relentless pursuit of reform, they continue to challenge the system, seeking to bring transparency, fairness, and accountability to an institution that is vital to the functioning of Indian democracy.
4.5. The origins of the movement can be traced back to 2004 when Adv. Nilesh Ojha filed his first formal complaint against Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sh. Jaydeep Mohite, seeking his criminal prosecution. The complaint accused the Magistrate of engaging in corrupt practices and delivering unjust verdicts to save the accused, undermining the integrity of the judicial process. What began as a single case was far from an isolated incident; it marked the beginning of what would eventually grow into a nationwide movement i.e. the “Jan-Andolan.”
4.6. This landmark case laid the foundation for Adv. Ojha’s long-standing commitment to exposing judicial misconduct. He was deeply inspired by the words of Martin Luther King Jr.: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Another guiding principle came from Napoleon Bonaparte, who said, “The world suffers a lot because of the silence of good and able people, more than the violence and injustice perpetrated by bad people.”
4.7. Motivated by these powerful quotes, Adv. Ojha and his team catalyzed a broader campaign to hold judges accountable not only for criminal offenses but also to ensure they are liable to pay damages or compensation for their wrongful actions. Through these efforts, they sought to create a legal system where the judiciary is held responsible for its actions, reinforcing the idea that no individual, not even a judge, is above the law.
4.8. The Jan-Andolan grew from this pivotal moment, challenging the entrenched norms of the judicial system. The movement pushed for greater transparency, integrity, and accountability within India’s judiciary, aiming to transform an institution that had often been immune to scrutiny. Through tireless advocacy, Adv. Ojha and his colleagues have been instrumental in bringing about crucial reforms and ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
4.9. In 2010, the the Bar Association passed a resolution against Adv. Nilesh Ojha and Sh. Rashid Khan Pathan and filed a police complaint against them. The evidence ex facie proves the cause was done at the behest of interested people and with the aim of discouraging their efforts to expose judicial corruption. This move was part of a larger coalition that included corrupt judges, their agent advocates, and certain police officers, all working together to intimidate and silence those who dared to challenge the system. Despite facing significant pressure and attempts to undermine their efforts, both Adv. Ojha and Sh. Pathan remained unwavering in their commitment to fight for judicial accountability.
4.10. The battle did not stop there. In 2017, the Bombay Bar Association filed a contempt petition before the Bombay High Court, which led to the formation of a historic constitutional bench of five judges. This marked a critical turning point in their ongoing campaign.
4.11. Two years later, in 2019, the Bombay Bar Association filed a formal complaint before the Supreme Court, which triggered the initiation of a suo-motu contempt petition titled Re: Vijay Kurle. This landmark case exposed the forgery of court records by high-ranking judges, including retired Judges like Rohinton Nariman, Deepak Gupta, Vineet Saran, and Aniruddha Bose.
4.12. In this case for the first time in Indian judicial history, the Supreme Court stayed a contempt sentence on the grounds that the affected party was entitled to an appeal before a larger bench of the Court. This development underscored the growing importance of holding the judiciary accountable and signaled a new era of judicial transparency.
4.13. Through these courageous actions, Adv. Nilesh Ojha, adv. Vijay Kurle and Rashid Khan Pathan and their colleagues slowly began to shift public perception. Over time, their steadfast determination gained increasing support from a broad cross-section of society, including citizens, legal professionals, and civil rights activists, all recognizing the need for reform and the importance of tackling corruption within the judiciary. This groundswell of support has propelled Adv. Ojha and his team into positions of leadership, with Adv. Nilesh Ojha now serving as the National President of the Indian Bar Association.
4.14. Today, Adv. Nilesh Ojha’s leadership stands as a powerful reflection of the success of his decades-long campaign for judicial transparency and accountability. Through his unwavering commitment, Adv. Ojha has emerged as a symbol of the crusade against corruption within the judiciary. His name has become synonymous with courage, integrity, and perseverance in the legal community, epitomizing the power of individual action in the face of systemic corruption.
4.15. The movement he helped spearhead has not only withstood numerous challenges and opposition but has flourished, gaining substantial support from citizens, legal professionals, and activists alike. This growing coalition underscores the widespread recognition of the need for reform and the desire for a judiciary that is truly transparent and accountable to the people.
4.16. The shift brought about by this movement marks a pivotal change in how judicial corruption is perceived and confronted in India. What was once an isolated fight has now become a national cause, pushing for a judiciary that truly serves the interests of justice. Adv. Ojha’s efforts continue to inspire a broad spectrum of society, reinforcing the belief that the judiciary, like any institution, must remain open to scrutiny and must be held accountable for its actions. This movement remains a powerful force, determined to ensure that the judicial system is not only a pillar of law but also a beacon of integrity.
4.17. The movement gained further momentum over the years, with organizations such as the Indian Bar Association (IBA) and the Supreme Court Lawyers Association (SCLA) stepping in to provide critical support. These organizations have become instrumental in amplifying the efforts of Adv. Ojha and his colleagues. They have helped to create a platform for the public to voice their concerns, share experiences of judicial misconduct, and engage in the larger conversation about the need for reform. The backing of such influential bodies has played a key role in ensuring that the movement’s message reaches a broader audience and receives the attention it deserves at the highest levels of government and the judiciary.
4.18. The Work Methodology :- Over the years, IBA have developed a systematic approach to exposing judicial misconduct. One of the core components of their efforts has been the publication of books and resources that compile landmark judgments on judicial accountability. These works are not merely academic; they serve as practical guides for both legal professionals and the public, illustrating how the judiciary has historically dealt with corruption and judicial discipline.
4.19. The books authored by Adv. Nilesh Ojha and published by the Indian Bar Association include:
1. Law Regarding Prosecution of Judges: This book offers guidance on the legal framework for prosecuting judges, along with tips, relevant case laws and model drafts for challenging and setting aside unlawful orders.
2. Law of Perjury: Focused on actions against dishonest litigants, advocates, and judges involved in corrupt and malicious practices, such as filing false and overruled pleadings to harass innocent people and genuine litigants. Or filing malicious prosecutions, false affidavits etc.
3. Law of Bails: A comprehensive guide to understanding the legal provisions and practices on how to get bail and protect the fundamentals rights and liberties with full text of landmark judgments, case notes and model drafts.
4. Human Rights Manual: A valuable resource that outlines the key principles and protections under human rights law.
5. Law of Precedents: This book aims to prevent the misuse of discretion by judges, emphasizing that judges have no authority to take a contrary view when a binding precedent exists.
6. Law Regarding Human Rights and Police: This work addresses the intersection of human rights and law enforcement, detailing the rights of individuals and the obligations of police officers with case laws where police personals were prosecuted and punished by the Courts and heavy cost was imposed upon them.
4.20. These publications have been instrumental in educating both legal professionals and the public, providing essential tools for challenging judicial misconduct and promoting justice and accountability in all the law enforcement agencies.
4.21. Additionally, IBA have compiled sample drafts and templates with relevant provisions of law and binding precedents to assist ordinary citizens in filing complaints against judges. These templates are not only a tool for those who have been wronged but also a way to democratize the process of holding the judiciary accountable. By providing these drafts, they have empowered individuals across the country to take action, making it easier for them to navigate the often complex and intimidating legal system. The availability of such resources has significantly lowered the barriers to justice for people who might otherwise be discouraged by the daunting task of challenging powerful figures within the judiciary.
4.22. In addition to these publications, members of Indian Bar Association have personally filed numerous legal proceedings. These include criminal cases, writ petitions, Public Interest Litigations (PILs), and contempt petitions against judges at all levels. Their legal targets have ranged from lower court judges to high-ranking officials, including the Chief Justice of India, Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud. These actions have often centered on allegations of corruption, incompetence, and bias, and they have had significant implications for how the public perceives the integrity of the judicial system.
4.23. Confronting Corruption in Legal Lobbies:- Perhaps one of the most significant aspects of Adv. Ojha and his colleagues’ work has been their refusal to surrender to the pressure exerted by powerful lobbies within the legal community. These lobbies, which often include senior counsels and influential members of the legal profession, are sometimes seen as protectors of corrupt judges. They have actively resisted attempts to discredit them by individuals such as Adv. Milind Sathe and Adv. Nitin Thakkar, who have been associated with these corrupt networks. Despite facing intense pressure from such figures, These Activists have not only refused to back down but have actively taken legal action against these lobbies.
4.24. In several instances, they have filed suits and legal petitions aimed at dismantling these networks and ensuring that judicial corruption is rooted out. These actions have successfully exposed the influence of corrupt lobbies, preventing them from unduly controlling the legal process and protecting the interests of dishonest judges. The successful pushback against these lobbies has been one of the key victories of the movement, as it has ensured that judicial accountability remains the focus of legal reform efforts.
4.25. Supporting Victims of Judicial Misconduct:- Another vital aspect of this movement has been its focus on supporting the victims of judicial misconduct. One such case involved the efforts of IBA to assist individuals like Manubhai Patel, a victim who sought justice after suffering due to the actions of corrupt and incompetent judges. By offering legal guidance and direct support, they have tried their level best to ensure that these victims receive a fair hearing, often in cases where the judicial system itself has failed them.
4.26. This support extends beyond just individual cases. IBA have worked tirelessly to create a framework that helps others who have experienced similar injustices within the system. This includes providing legal counseling, helping with the drafting of complaints, and offering emotional and moral support to individuals who are often intimidated by the prospect of challenging the judiciary. Their work has proven to be transformative for many, giving victims of judicial misconduct a platform to seek justice and contributing to a broader understanding of the scale of the problem.
4.27. The Lasting Impact of the Movement:- The cumulative efforts of IBA, and their colleagues have had a profound and lasting impact on the judicial system. Over the past two decades, their work has awakened the public to the realities of judicial corruption and misconduct, which were once swept under the rug or dismissed as isolated incidents. Their advocacy has played a pivotal role in reducing the open, brazen instances of judicial corruption that once occurred with impunity. What was once a practice hidden behind closed doors is now under closer scrutiny, thanks in part to the efforts of these determined individuals.
4.28. The movement has not only exposed widespread corruption but also fostered a culture of accountability. Citizens, legal professionals, and even judges themselves are now more aware of the need for integrity and transparency in the judicial system. Public trust in the judiciary, though still a work in progress, has been significantly improved due to these efforts.
4.29. Adv. Nilesh Ojha, Adv. Vijay Kurle, and their team have not only exposed the deep-rooted corruption within India’s judiciary but have also paved the way for much-needed reforms. Their tireless advocacy has contributed to a judicial system that is more transparent, accountable, and responsive to the needs of the people. The movement has transformed the judicial landscape, reducing instances of misconduct and promoting a greater sense of justice for all. Their work continues to inspire a new generation of activists and legal professionals dedicated to rooting out corruption and ensuring that the judiciary serves the public with integrity and fairness.
4.30. For more detailed information on the work of Adv. Ojha and his colleagues, including their legal resources, books, and ongoing cases, the public can visit the following platforms:
- SC News: https://rashidkhanpathan.com/
- Rashid Khan Pathan Blogs: https://rashidkhanvaccineblog.blogspot.com/
- Indian Bar Association: https://indianbarassociation.in/
4.31. Recently, Sh. Mursalin Sheikh filed a perjury petition against Adv. Milind Sathe, Adv. Nitin Thakkar, Live Law news portal, and Dainik Sakal newspaper, accusing them of spreading false information and misleading the public. This is yet another example of how corrupt judicial officers and their associates attempt to silence those who expose their actions.
4.32. The movement to expose corruption within the judiciary is gaining momentum. The legal actions initiated by Adv. Ojha in 2004 have now evolved into a mass public campaign—Janandolan—with widespread support from the public. People are increasingly becoming aware of the systemic issues within the judicial system, and they are starting to demand greater accountability and transparency from judicial officers.
4.33. The growing support for this movement has already had a significant impact. Legal professionals and ordinary citizens alike are coming forward to support the cause, with many offering evidence of corrupt practices they have witnessed within the judicial system. This public awakening is an encouraging sign that the call for judicial reforms is resonating across the nation.
4.34. The Bombay High Court’s ruling in favor of Manubhai Patel is a crucial step in the fight for judicial accountability and transparency. The decision highlights that contempt of court provisions should never be misused to shield judges from criticism or expose their corrupt practices. The growing movement led by Adv. Nilesh Ojha, Adv. Vijay Kurle, and others has shown that judicial reforms are not only necessary but also supported by the public.
4.35. As the movement gains traction, it is essential for the corrupt, admant and dishonest Judges to recognize that no one is above the law—not even judges. The contempt law must remain a tool to protect the integrity of the judiciary, not to silence those who seek to expose its flaws. Through the tireless efforts of these activists, the cause of judicial reform is gaining strength, and the call for greater accountability within the judiciary is louder than ever before.
You can download the copy of order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court Here.
