'Imputations Of Personal Nature Against A Judge Must Rest On Unimpeachable Material': SC Dismisses Plea By Lawyer Of Disha Salian’s Father

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to interfere with the criminal contempt proceedings initiated against an advocate for making an unsubstantiated allegation against a sitting judge of the Bombay High Court by holding a press conference. The apex court said imputations of a personal nature against a judge must rest on unimpeachable material.

A bench comprising justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said any unfounded or intemperate allegations impugning the integrity, motives, or impartiality of the judiciary, whether directed against the institution or an individual judge, assume serious significance. “Such imputations, when made without a substantiated basis and in a manner calculated to erode public faith, have the potential to diminish the credibility of the justice delivery system,” said the bench.

The bench stressed that while fair, reasoned, and bona fide criticism of judicial decisions remains a legitimate facet of democratic discourse, reckless aspersions strike at the very foundation of judicial independence by undermining the trust upon which the authority of the judiciary ultimately rests.

The bench said that in its considered view, allegations of this character, if left unchecked, possess an inherent tendency to erode public confidence in the administration of justice. “While accountability and scrutiny are integral to a constitutional democracy, imputations of personal nature against a Judge must rest on unimpeachable material and be pursued strictly in accordance with law, failing which, they risk undermining the very edifice of judicial independence”, said the bench

The bench said 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 bench said 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.

“Professional ethics require that grievances against judicial orders must be ventilated through established legal remedies before appropriate judicial forums, rather than through public commentary capable of influencing perception about the fairness or integrity of the judicial process”, said the bench.

The bench 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 bench said 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.

The bench said 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 bench said a litigant aggrieved by a judicial order is undoubtedly entitled to question its correctness before a higher forum. It added, however, that the legitimacy of such a challenge rests upon civilised and temperate criticism of the judicial determination and not upon insinuations directed at the integrity or neutrality of the judge.

The bench said a clear distinction must be maintained between assailing the correctness of a judicial decision and personalising the grievance by attributing motives to the Judge concerned.

The bench made these observations while declining to interfere with the contempt proceedings initiated by the high court against advocate Nilesh Ojha.

The bench said, upon a prima facie consideration of the material on record, the allegations, as presently framed, appear to traverse that well-recognised boundary.

The bench said they 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 high court, require a degree of responsibility and substantiation commensurate with their seriousness. The tenor and sweep of the allegations, therefore, raise concerns that go beyond the immediate lis between the parties”, it said.

Ojha's plea challenged the contempt proceedings initiated against him by the Bombay High Court for his "scandalous and defamatory" remarks targeting a judge during a press briefing on the Disha Salian death case.

Salian, the former manager of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, was found dead in June 2020. Salian's father had moved the high court, seeking a fresh probe into the mysterious circumstances under which his daughter was found dead.

At the press conference on April 1, Ojha, Salian’s lawyer, levelled allegations of corruption against the high court judge before whom the plea was listed for hearing.