'Unfounded allegations against judiciary serious matter': SC allows contempt proceedings against lawyer of Disha Salian's father

Disha Salian, the former manager of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, was found dead in June 2020.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said that 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, as it allowed contempt proceedings against a lawyer for making allegations against a Bombay High Court judge.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed advocate Nilesh Ojha’s plea challenging 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.

The court here allowed the proceedings to continue, saying any attempt to scandalise or sensationalise judicial proceedings undermines the very foundation of the institution.

Salian, the former manager of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, was found dead in June 2020.

Her 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, Ojha, Salian’s lawyer, levelled allegations of corruption against the high court judge before whom the plea was listed for hearing.

Rejecting the challenge to the contempt proceedings, the bench said, judicial independence formed a foundational and non-derogable feature of the constitutional scheme.

“It ensures that courts are able to discharge their adjudicatory functions free from external influence, fear, favour or pressure, thereby safeguarding the rule of law and securing the effective dispensation of justice. The strength and legitimacy of the judiciary lie not in any capacity to command or compel, but in the confidence of the people in its integrity, neutrality and institutional independence,” the bench said.

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

The court emphasised imputations, when made without substantiated basis and in a manner calculated to erode public faith, have the potential to diminish the credibility of the justice-delivery system.

"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.