The judgment also clarifies that allegations against judges are permissible in law only when supported by substantial evidence and grounded in truth, reinforcing the distinction between legitimate, evidence-based assertions and baseless claims. [Nilesh Ojha vs High Court of Bombay 2026 INSC 390].
The Supreme Court has clearly stated that its observations are purely prima facie and must not be treated as any expression on the merits of the case. It has directed the High Court to decide the matter independently and without being influenced by any observations made in its order.
In legal terms, such a direction amounts to a virtual or implied overruling of the impugned reasoning, as recognized in High Court of Karnataka v. Jai Chaitanya Dasa, 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 549.
However, certain media outlets, including The Times of India and Live Law, appear to have either failed to properly understand the Supreme Court’s order due to lack of adequate legal appreciation, or have selectively omitted its crucial findings, thereby presenting a misleading narrative to the public.
The Supreme Court’s order is expected to have a direct impact on the ongoing narrative driven by advocates such as Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, along with supporters of the INDI Alliance, who have been making baseless allegations against judges through public platforms.
Recently, a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, in Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of M.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 8, ruled that if allegations against a judge are established as true, it is imperative that disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution be initiated against such Judges.
Background of the Case
The case pertains to contempt proceedings initiated by the Bombay High Court against Adv. Nilesh Ojha following statements made during a press conference, wherein he raised allegations that Justice Revathi Mohite Dere was disqualified from hearing the case of Satish Salian, father of Disha Salian, on the basis of the following grounds:
It was asserted that there exists deemed sanction for prosecution of Justice Revathi Mohite Dere in relation to alleged acts of corruption, forgery of High Court records including the grant of bail to former ICICI Bank Chairperson Smt. Chanda Kochhar in a multi-crore corruption case, as well as in a case involving an MLA accused of attempting to murder police officers.
Adv. Nilesh Ojha himself is representing proceedings seeking prosecution of Justice Dere, thereby raising a direct issue of conflict.
Justice Dere’s sister is stated to be a leader of the Nationalist Congress Party and had publicly expressed support for accused Aditya Thackeray, and she had been accused in the complaints given to police giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Initiation of Contempt Proceedings
Following the press conference, Justice Revathi Mohite Dere addressed a letter dated 02.04.2025 to the then Chief Justice, stating that the allegations were false and baseless. Acting upon this communication, then Chief Justice Alok Aradhe took suo motu cognizance and constituted a Five-Judge Bench, which issued notice to Adv. Nilesh Ojha on 08.04.2025.
Proceedings Before the High Court
Adv. Ojha filed a detailed discharge application, placing on record various materials including court orders, CBI reports, and police records in support of his contentions. He further sought:
Summoning of Justice Dere as a witness; and
Her impleadment as a party respondent.
During the hearing, Amicus Curiae Darius Khambata relied on the judgments in Pritam Pal v. High Court of M.P., 1993 Supp (1) SCC 529 and C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta, (1971) 1 SCC 626 to contend that a High Court, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, has unlimited jurisdiction and is not strictly bound by procedural limitations under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and may evolve its own procedure. It was further argued that truth is not a defence in contempt proceedings.
In response, Adv. Nilesh Ojha submitted that the reliance on C.K. Daphtary is misplaced, as the said judgment is per incuriam, being contrary to the earlier Constitution Bench ratio in Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Madras, 1952 SCR 425. He further contended that the position has been statutorily and substantially altered, and the earlier view stands diluted and overruled by subsequent binding precedents, including:
P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shankar, (1988) 3 SCC 167 (para 39),
Biman Basu v. Kallol Guha Thakurta, (2010) 8 SCC 673 (para 23),
Bal Thackeray v. Harish Pimpalkhute, (2005) 1 SCC 254,
Subramanian Swamy v. Arun Shourie, (2014) 12 SCC 344,
In Re: C.S. Karnan, (2017) 7 SCC 1, and
Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, (1965) 1 SCR 413.
S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764
It was thus argued that the legal position has made it clear buy the constitution Benches since 1952 and now after 2006 Amendment that publication of truth, does not amount to contempt even if it has effect of shaking public confidence in the said Judge or court and that contempt proceedings should be conducted strictly as per contempt of courts act, 1971 and rules made thereunder and any deviation vitiates the proceedings
The High Court, however, did not accept these submissions and proceeded to initiate a second contempt proceeding by treating the said precedents as binding. Further, when a recall application was filed by Adv. Ojha, the High Court held that the question of whether the said judgments are per incuriam or overruled should be decided by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Order and Its Legal Effect
Adv. Nilesh Ojha assailed the High Court’s orders on several grounds. Though the Supreme Court declined to interfere, it granted substantial relief by directing the High Court to decide all issues in their entirety.
Significantly, the Court made it clear that allegations against a judge, when backed by sound and credible evidence, are legally permissible.
The order records:
“35…. The issues raised can appropriately be examined by the High Court in accordance with law.
36. We are, therefore, not inclined to interdict the proceedings at this stage. We request the High Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously and to adjudicate upon all issues arising therein independently and on their own merits.
37. We clarify that the observations made in the preceding paragraphs are confined to a prima facie consideration for the limited purpose of adjudication of the present appeals. They shall not be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy, nor shall they in any manner influence the High Court in the independent exercise of its judicial functions.”
Interpretation of the Order
Although, at first glance, the order may appear to present a dual approach—declining interference while simultaneously directing adjudication—the substantive effect is clear:
The High Court is required to adjudicate all issues raised in the appeal, including those it had earlier declined to consider;
The High Court must do so independently and uninfluenced by any observations of the Supreme Court; and
The proceedings must be decided on their own merits, based on the material on record.
Thus, the operative direction effectively restores full jurisdiction to the High Court to decide every issue arising in the matter.
However, the reports carried by Times of India Live Law and Bar & Bench appear to misinterpret and selectively present the Supreme Court’s order, leading to a distorted portrayal of the case.
This selective reporting not only fails to capture the full substance of the Court’s directions, but also creates an impression that is prejudicial and incomplete, especially when viewed against the documentary material available on record, including court records and investigative reports.
They have failed to present the complete factual matrix, including material on record such as court documents and investigative reports of agencies like the CBI and police.
Such selective reporting gives rise to a reasonable perception that crucial aspects of the case are being downplayed or omitted, thereby shielding relevant issues from full public scrutiny and presenting a one-sided and incomplete account.
Such dishonest reporting constitutes criminal contempt of court, defamation, and breach of journalistic ethics, Norms of Journalistic Conduct as per Press Council of India, and provides sufficient ground for initiation of appropriate legal proceedings, including action for contempt and cancellation of their registration as a newspaper/publication in accordance with law. [ Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 56, Court on its Own Motion vs. Kuldeep Chauhan, 2015 SCC On Line HP 3872, High Court of Meghalaya v. Patricia Mukhim, 2019 SCC OnLine Megh 41, Anil Thakeraney v. M. Darius Kapadia, 2004 BCR (Cri) 1450]
Where it is ruled that publication of Motivated, One-Sided News with defamatory headings to Create Prejudice makes publisher and reporter co accused in Conspiracy with main accused. [Shyni Varghese v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2008 SCC OnLine Del 204, Bhupinder Singh Patel v. CBI, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 711, Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 56, Court on its Own Motion vs. Kuldeep Chauhan, 2015 SCC On Line HP 3872, High Court of Meghalaya v. Patricia Mukhim, 2019 SCC OnLine Megh 41, Anil Thakeraney v. M. Darius Kapadia, 2004 BCR (Cri) 1450, Selvina Kom Peter Byarko v. Ganesh P., 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1638].
