A five-judge bench of the Bombay High Court on September 17, 2025, dismissed an application filed by advocate Nilesh C. Ojha seeking to implead a sitting High Court judge as a party in an ongoing criminal contempt case against him. Taking serious exception to the language used in the application, the Court initiated a fresh suo motu criminal contempt case against Mr. Ojha for making “disparaging and scandalous statements” against the judge in his pleadings.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justices M. S. Sonak, Ravindra V. Ghuge, A. S. Gadkari, and B. P. Colabawalla, held that a person who provides information to the court about contemptuous conduct is not a “complainant” and cannot be made a party to the proceedings.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a suo motu criminal contempt petition initiated against Mr. Ojha earlier in 2025. The initial action was taken after Mr. Ojha held a press conference on April 1, 2025, concerning a criminal writ petition filed by his client, which was listed for hearing the next day before a Division Bench that included the judge in question (referred to as “X” in the judgment).
In the press conference, a video of which was streamed on YouTube and news channels, Mr. Ojha alleged that the judge was “disqualified from hearing” the case due to an apparent conflict of interest, claiming her sister was an accused in an FIR filed by his client. He made further allegations of bias and forgery of court records against the judge.
On April 8, 2025, a High Court bench took cognizance of the video clip and transcripts, observing that the statements were made “deliberately to scandalize the authority of the Court and a Judge of this Court.” The bench concluded that Mr. Ojha’s actions prima facie constituted criminal contempt, leading to the registration of Criminal Suo Motu Contempt Petition No. 1 of 2025.
Arguments of the Applicant-Contemnor
In the present Interim Application (No. 3297 of 2025), Mr. Ojha sought to implead Judge “X” as a respondent in his applications for discharge from the contempt case. His primary arguments were:
- The judge was the “de facto complainant” and it was imperative for her to file a personal affidavit to rebut the serious allegations of bias and mala fides he had made against her.
- He contended that in the absence of a “clear and categorical denial on affidavit by the complainant Judge,” the Court was bound to treat his allegations as “deemed admitted.”
- He argued that state law officers, including the Advocate General, could not represent a judge in matters concerning allegations of personal misconduct.
- Relying on Supreme Court precedents, he submitted that a discharge application, which could terminate the prosecution, could not be decided without hearing the complainant.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The five-judge bench systematically rejected Mr. Ojha’s contentions and took a stern view of the pleadings in his application.
On Impleading the Judge: The Court clarified that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, does not use the word “complainant.” It held that the information provided by the judge to the Chief Justice was merely that—information, and not a formal complaint as defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court ruled that contempt proceedings are fundamentally a matter between the Court and the contemnor.
The judgment stated, “The person who supplies information to the Chief Justice regarding contumacious material and conduct of a person… cannot be added as a party-respondent for the purpose of his cross-examination. He is not treated as a complainant or considered a necessary or proper party in the contempt proceedings.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Biman Basu v. Kallol Guha, the bench reiterated that once facts are placed before the court, “it becomes a matter between the Court and the contemnor,” and the informant does not become a petitioner.
Initiation of Fresh Contempt Proceedings: The bench then turned its focus to the content of Mr. Ojha’s application itself. It noted that the application contained numerous scandalous expressions against the judge, including ‘forgery’, ‘perjury’, ‘bias’, ‘gross misconduct’, ‘breach of the oath of the office’, and ‘conspiracy to forge and manipulate Court record’.
The Court found that these statements constituted a fresh act of criminal contempt. The judgment observed, “The choice of words and the language used in this Interim Application are defamatory… The statements made by the applicant-contemnor seem to be intended at scandalizing the Court in such a way as to create distrust in the people’s mind and impair the confidence of the people in the Court and the Judge.”
The Court opined that the “scurrilous attack on the integrity and honesty” of the judge was a direct interference with the administration of justice. It held: “Prima-facie, we are of the opinion that the statements made in this Interim Application tend to interfere with the proper administration of law and justice. The derogatory statements made against a sitting Judge of this Court offend the dignity of the Court and are calculated to undermine the confidence of the public in the integrity of the Judge. The act of making wild allegations against ‘X’ in this Interim Application is squarely covered under the definition of and constitutes ‘criminal contempt’.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court dismissed Mr. Ojha’s application to implead the judge. Furthermore, the bench took suo motu cognizance of the contemptuous pleadings and ordered the registration of a new Criminal Suo Motu Contempt Case against Nilesh C. Ojha. He has been directed to file a statement of defense within four weeks as to why a charge for contempt should not be framed against him.
The Court also took note of the 15 advocates who appeared with Mr. Ojha, who was arguing in person, stating that they had committed “professional misconduct” by assisting a party-in-person in court, which is against Bar Council rules. However, the bench decided to let them off with a warning.
The matter is scheduled to be heard next on October 16, 2025.
