3 min readNew DelhiApr 21, 2026 05:30 AM IST
Observing that addressing a press conference in the Disha Salian death case and publicly voicing allegations against a sitting judge cannot be viewed lightly, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed advocate Nilesh Ojha’s appeal challenging the contempt proceedings initiated against him by the Bombay HC for “disparaging and scandalous imputations”.
Salian, the former manager of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, was found dead in June 2020. The advocate who represented Disha’s father Dinesh Salian had allegedly made the remarks on April 1, 2025 against one of the HC judges, who was part of the bench, before the plea for a CBI probe into the “suspicious” death of Disha was taken up.
The judge wrote to the Bombay HC Chief Justice and a show cause notice was issued to him as to why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated. In his reply, Ojha allegedly also made certain “disparaging and scandalous imputations” against the judge. The HC then registered separate criminal contempt proceedings against him. Ojha moved the top court challenging the decision.
On Monday, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said “the manner in which the press conference was convened and the allegations were projected is, prima facie, unbecoming of a member of law professional and falls short of the standards of propriety, restraint, professional, and ethical responsibility which the legal profession demands.”
“… The course adopted by the appellant-contemnor in addressing a press conference and publicly voicing allegations against a sitting judge cannot be viewed lightly. The act of carrying a pending judicial controversy into the public domain in a manner that tends to sensationalise the proceedings or scandalise the institution or its constitutional component, i.e., the Judges, is wholly inconsistent with the discipline expected of an advocate,” the bench said.
Writing for the bench, Justice Mehta said, “An advocate, more than any other stakeholder in the justice delivery system, bears a heightened duty to uphold the dignity of the institution… Public confidence in the judiciary constitutes an indispensable foundation of the rule of law, and any attempt to scandalise or sensationalise judicial proceedings undermines that very foundation.”
The court said that “the allegations… are not confined to identifying any error of law or fact, but extend to imputing motives without any demonstrable foundation. Assertions of this nature, particularly when directed against a sitting Judge of the HC, require a degree of responsibility and substantiation commensurate with their seriousness.”
Story continues below this ad
The bench said, “In our considered view, allegations of this character, if left unchecked, possess an inherent tendency to erode public confidence in the administration of justice…”
“In the present case”, it said, “the appellant-contemnor has levelled serious imputations against … a sitting Judge of the HC. The allegations voiced by the appellant-contemnor during the press conference, as well as those reiterated in the interim application… attribute lack of impartiality and improper motives to a constitutional functionary discharging judicial duties.”
