Advocates Can’t Use Press Conferences To Scandalise Judges; Grievances Must Be Ventilated Through Legal Remedies: Supreme Court

"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 Judges is wholly inconsistent with the discipline expected of an advocate," Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling dated April 20, 2026, held that advocates bear a heightened obligation to maintain restraint and cannot carry judicial controversies into the public domain through press conferences to cast aspersions on sitting judges.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that such conduct is "wholly inconsistent" with professional ethics and has the potential to diminish the credibility of the justice delivery system.

The matter arose from a press conference held by advocate Nilesh C. Ojha, where he alleged that a sitting judge of the Bombay High Court was disqualified from hearing a case because her sister was an accused in a related FIR. Following a letter from the concerned judge, the Chief Justice of the High Court took suo motu cognizance and initiated contempt proceedings. The appellant challenged the High Court’s refusal to implead the sitting judge as a respondent and the registration of additional contempt proceedings for scandalous statements made in his interim applications.

The primary question before the court was whether a sitting judge can be impleaded as a party-respondent in suo motu contempt proceedings. The court was also called upon to determine whether an advocate's act of addressing a press conference to voice grievances against a judge constitutes a breach of professional ethics and a prima facie case for criminal contempt.

Judicial Independence And Public Confidence

The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial independence is a foundational and non-derogable feature of the constitutional scheme, which ensures that courts function free from external pressure. The bench noted that the legitimacy of the judiciary rests entirely on the confidence of the people in its integrity and neutrality.

The bench placed reliance on the precedent in Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India, noting that the "sole strength of the judiciary lies in the public confidence and the trust." The Court observed that any unfounded or intemperate allegations impugning the motives of the judiciary strike at the very foundation of judicial independence by undermining this essential trust.

"Erosion of credibility of the judiciary, in the public mind, for whatever reasons, is the greatest threat to the independence of the judiciary."

Heightened Duty Of Advocates As Officers Of The Court

The Court highlighted that members of the Bar occupy a position of privilege and responsibility in the administration of justice. As officers of the Court, advocates are under a "heightened obligation" to conduct themselves with restraint and sobriety, both within and outside the courtroom, reflecting the ethical standards of the profession.

The bench expressed strong disapproval of the appellant’s decision to address a press conference regarding a pending matter. It observed that professional ethics require grievances against judicial orders to be ventilated through established legal remedies before appropriate forums, rather than through public commentary designed to influence perceptions of the judicial process.

"The manner in which the press conference was convened and the allegations were projected is, prima facie, unbecoming of a member of the law professional."

Impleadment Of Sitting Judges In Contempt Proceedings

Regarding the appellant's prayer to implead the concerned High Court judge as a respondent, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s rejection. The bench noted that a person who merely furnishes information to the Chief Justice regarding contemptuous conduct cannot be construed as a complainant or a necessary party.

The Court affirmed that in suo motu proceedings, the primary "lis" is between the Court and the alleged contemnor. Therefore, the judge who brought the conduct to the notice of the Chief Justice is not a proper party to be impleaded, as the proceedings are initiated by the Court in its own right to protect the majesty of law.

Scope Of Bona Fide Legal Defence

The appellant had contended that his legal submissions, based on precedents like P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shankar, should not constitute contempt. He argued that the ratio in C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta had been eclipsed by later judgments. However, the Supreme Court declined to express a final opinion on these merits, leaving them for the High Court to adjudicate.

The bench noted that while fair and reasoned criticism of judicial decisions is a legitimate facet of democracy, reckless aspersions are not. It clarified that a clear distinction must be maintained between assailing the correctness of a judicial decision and personalising a grievance by attributing motives to the judge concerned.

"Imputations of personal nature against a Judge must rest on unimpeachable material and be pursued strictly in accordance with law."

The Supreme Court concluded that no case for interference with the High Court's interim orders was made out at this stage. The bench dismissed the appeals but requested the High Court to proceed expeditiously with the contempt petition. It clarified that its observations were confined to a prima facie consideration and should not influence the High Court’s final adjudication on the merits of the controversy.

The ruling reinforces the principle that advocates cannot use public platforms to scandalise the judiciary under the guise of exercising legal rights. By dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court has underscored that professional discipline and the institutional sanctity of the courts outweigh individual grievances, which must only be pursued through proper legal channels.

Date of Decision: 20 April 2026