New Delhi: Holding a press conference to publicly make allegations against a sitting judge “cannot be viewed lightly”, the Supreme Court said Monday, dismissing a plea by lawyer Nilesh Ojha who had challenged contempt proceedings initiated against him by the Bombay High Court.
The HC had initiated contempt proceedings against Ojha after he made allegations linked to the Disha Salian death case at a press conference in Mumbai in April last year.
Salian (28) was Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s manager. She died after falling from the 12th floor of a residential building in Mumbai’s Malad in June 2020, weeks before Rajput is believed to have died by suicide. Her death, followed by Rajput’s, became subjects of prolonged public debate, conspiracy theories and political controversies.
Salian’s father later moved the Bombay High Court, seeking a fresh investigation into the circumstances of her death. The case is ongoing.
The SC bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, in a 20-page ruling Monday, noted that 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”.
“In our considered view, allegations of this character, if left unchecked, possess an inherent tendency to erode public confidence in the administration of justice,” the bench held, adding that assertions directed at a high court judge required “a degree of responsibility”.
The top court was unsparing in its criticism.
“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 bench further held that any attempt to “scandalise or sensationalise judicial proceedings undermines the very foundation of the institution”.
The controversial press conference
Last year, Ojha–who represents Salian’s father–held a press conference, where he named politician Aaditya Thackeray, actors Dino Morea and Suraj Pancholi, and former police commissioner Parambir Singh in connection with the case.
He also alleged that Justice Revati Mohite Dere of the Bombay High Court should be disqualified from hearing the Salian case because her sister had been named as an accused in the FIR filed at the instance of his client (Salian’s father).
Ojha further alleged that Justice Dere had an association with the Nationalist Congress Party.
The timing of the press briefing—one day before the case was to come before the very judge he was targeting—was not lost on the High Court.
Justice Dere subsequently approached the Bombay High Court’s Chief Justice who formed a five-judge bench, which initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Ojha.
Ojha challenged these proceedings before the Bombay High Court itself. But the High Court, in October 2025, dismissed his challenge, describing it as “sheer abuse” of the legal process. Ojha then moved the Supreme Court.
Not the first time
The Supreme Court criticism wasn’t the first time Ojha has been embroiled in controversy.
In September 2020, the Supreme Court registry declined to entertain an application that sought to recall previous order sentencing Ojha along with advocates Vijay Kurle and Rashid Khan Pathan to simple imprisonment for three months and a Rs 2,000 fine in a contempt case.
“If the Appellant continues to file such repetitive applications in this litigation which are not maintainable, he will be visited with deterrent actions referred above such as initiation of criminal contempt proceedings or a direction to the Registry that no further applications in this litigation will be received,” it had warned.
In this contempt case ruling, the SC bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose had said that the three lawyers had made “scurrilous and scandalous allegations” against sitting judges and termed this as a “concerted effort to virtually hold the judiciary to ransom”.
Then, in 2022, Ojha represented a petitioner who had challenged a directive of the Maharashtra government to mandate Covid-19 vaccination for suburban train commuters in Mumbai. The HC had refused to interfere in the government’s directive.
Also Read: Bar Council of Delhi polls marred by ballot paper forgery allegations. Counting staff named in FIR