HC junks plea by Satish Salian’s lawyer to implead senior judge in contempt case against him

The Bombay High Court dismissed advocate Nilesh C Ojha's plea to involve a senior judge in contempt proceedings, initiating a separate contempt case against him.

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday rejected an attempt by advocate Nilesh C Ojha, representing the late celebrity manager Disha Salian’s father Satish Salian, to implead a senior judge of the High Court in contempt proceedings against him. The bench also directed initiation of a separate criminal contempt case, noting that Ojha had used “scandalous and defamatory” language against the sitting judge.

HC junks plea by Satish Salian’s lawyer to implead senior judge in contempt case against him

The controversy arose after Ojha held a press conference on April 1, 2025, a day before the hearing of a petition filed by Satish Salian seeking a CBI probe into his daughter Disha Salian’s death. Disha, who managed actor Sushant Singh Rajput, died by suicide on June 8, 2020 after falling off the 14th floor of a residential building, as per police reports. The Malvani police had submitted a closure report to a superior officer in February 2021, following standard procedure for accidental deaths.

During the press meet, Ojha alleged that a senior judge should not hear the case as her sister was an accused in a related FIR. He further accused the judge of forging records and claimed that a “deemed sanction” had been granted to prosecute her.

In the order delivered on September 17, 2025, chief justice Shree Chandrashekhar, along with Justices MS Sonak, Ravindra V Ghuge, AS Gadkari, and BP Colabawalla, dismissed Ojha’s plea to make the senior judge a party to the contempt case, terming the request “misconceived” and contrary to settled legal principles.

The bench clarified that the person providing information of contempt to the chief justice cannot act as a complainant or respondent. “Contempt is essentially a matter between the court and the contemnor,” the judges said, rejecting Ojha’s demand that the judge file an affidavit denying the allegations.

However, the court expressed serious concern over the offensive language Ojha used in his applications, citing terms such as “forgery,” “perjury,” “bias,” “fraud on power,” “gross misconduct,” and “breach of oath of office” repeatedly directed at the judge. The bench ruled that these were not legitimate criticisms but a “scurrilous attack calculated to scandalise the judiciary and obstruct the administration of justice.”

“The offensive, scurrilous and scandalising remarks are of such magnitude that prima facie the contemnor has made himself liable for criminal contempt,” the court observed.

Consequently, the bench ordered the initiation of a separate suo motu criminal contempt proceeding against Ojha, directing him to file his defence within four weeks, explaining why he should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The court also took note of nearly 15 advocates appearing alongside Ojha, despite his claim to argue in person. While warning them against professional impropriety, the bench refrained from initiating contempt action, stating their conduct was improper but not contemptuous at this stage.

The matter is now scheduled for further hearing on October 16, 2025.