Holding

Advocate Mathews Nedumpara is guilty of contempt and is sentenced to three months' imprisonment (suspended) and a one‑year practice bar, and notices of contempt are issued to the complainants with a direction to the CJI to constitute a bench for further proceedings.

Summary

The Supreme Court, hearing a suo motu contempt petition (CrL.) No.1 of 2019, affirmed that advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara had committed contempt of court for statements made in the face of the Court. He tendered an affidavit of apology and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, suspended on condition of future good conduct, and barred from practising before the Supreme Court for one year. The Court also noted two separate complaints filed by the Indian Bar Association and the Human Rights Security Council seeking prosecution of the judges who had convicted Nedumpara, and held that these complaints were scandalous, vexatious and intended to browbeat the judiciary. Consequently, notices of contempt were issued to the complainants – Vijay Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan, Nilesh Ojha and Mathews Nedumpara – to explain why they should not be punished. The Court directed the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate bench to adjudicate the contempt matters and dismissed the complaints as an attack on judicial independence.

Issues considered

The appropriate punishment for advocate Mathews Nedumpara for contempt of court.
Whether the complaints filed by the Indian Bar Association and the Human Rights Security Council constitute contempt of the Supreme Court.
Whether notices of contempt should be issued to the complainants.
Whether the matter should be transferred to another bench.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 479
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 14(1), s. 14(2)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120(b), s. 191, s. 192, s. 193, s. 201, s. 218, s. 219, s. 34, s. 466, s. 471, s. 474
Judges (Protection) Act, 1985

Subjects

contempt of courtadvocate disciplinejudicial independencesuo motu jurisdictionSupreme CourtBar Association complaintscriminal contemptpractice suspension

Judgment

912 [2019]
SUPREME COURT 8 S.C.R. 912
REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1 OF 2019
IN RE: MR. MATHEWS NEDUMPARA
MARCH 27, 2019
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
B Contempt of Court – ‘MN’, an advocate committed contempt
of court – By judgment dated 12.03.2019, as reported in [2019] 5
SCR 313, the Court issued notice to the said advocate as to the
punishment to be imposed upon him for committing contempt in the
face of the Court – Advocate in question tendered an apology by
C way of an affidavit – Held: Given the fact that ‘MN’ has now
undertaken that he will never again attempt to browbeat any judge
either of Supreme Court or of the Bombay High Court, he is
sentenced to three years imprisonment, however, the same is
suspended considering his undertaking – In addition ‘MN’ barred
from practicing as an advocate before the Supreme Court of India
D for a period of one year – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s.14(1)
& (2).
Contempt of Court – A Bench of the Supreme Court convicted
one advocate ‘MN’ for committing contempt in the face of the Court
by judgment dated 12.03.2019, as reported in [2019] 5 SCR 313 –
E Two complaints were filed against the said Bench of the Supreme
Court – One complaint dated 20.03.2019 was filed by the ‘Indian
Bar Association’ through one advocate ‘VK’ for passing the judgment
dated 12.03.2019 – The other complaint dated 19.03.2019 was filed
by one ‘RK’ , the National Secretary of Human Rights Security
Council for another order in another matter against the same Bench
F
– Both complaints sought prosecution of the Judges and withdrawl
of judicial work from them – Bombay Bar Association and the
Bombay Incorporated Law Society by letter dated 23.03.2019
alleged that both complaints were substantially similar showing prima
facie that ‘VK’ and ‘RK’ were acting in tandem – It was alleged that
G advocates ‘N’ (National President of Indian Bar Association), ‘VK’
and their associates had history of making frivolous allegation
against the Judges – Also both ‘MN’ and ‘N’ have appeared for
each other in various matters including contempt matters in the High
Court – So, both are in tandem with one another – It was further
alleged that these complaints were made after the said Bench of the
H
912
IN RE: MR. MATHEWS NEDUMPARA 913

Supreme Court held ‘MN’ guilty of contempt of Court and the A
complaints are intended to browbeat the Court – Held: Given the
two complaints filed, it was clear that scandalous allegations were
made against the Bench of the Supreme Court – Therefore, notice
of contempt issued to ‘VK’, ‘RK’, ‘N’ and ‘MN’ – Further, given the
serious nature of the allegations levelled against the Bench – Matter
B
referred to the Chief Justice of India to constitute appropriate Bench
to hear and decide the Contempt case.
National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency
and Reforms & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [2019]
5 SCR 313 - referred to .
Case Law Reference C
[2019] 5 SCR 313 referred to Para 1
INHERENT JURISDICTION : Suo Motu Contempt Petition
(Crl.) No. 1 of 2019.
By Courts Motion
D
The following Order of the Court was passed
ORDER
1. By a judgment dated 12th March, 2019 in National Lawyers
Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms & Ors. vs. Union
of India and Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 191 of 2019), this Bench held E
that Shri Mathews Nedumpara, Advocate has committed contempt in
the face of the Court. In the interest of justice, however, notice was
issued to Shri Nedumpara as to the punishment to be imposed upon him
for committing contempt in the face of the Court.
2. Shri Nedumpara appeared today before us both by himself and
F
through Advocate Shri Subhash Jha.
3. In the morning session, Shri Nedumpara did his best to see that
the matter was not heard by this Bench. He informed us that a Transfer
Petition was filed asking the Chief Justice of India to transfer this case
from this Bench to some other Bench. He also stated that he was going
to file an application for recall of our order dated 12th March, 2019. He G
then cited latin maxims and said that justice must be seen to be done.
He also referred to the famous Rex vs. Sussex Justices case and referred
generally to the fact that relatives of Judges should not be seen practicing
in the same Court. He later asked the Bench to grant a “pass over” of
H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A his matter inasmuch as his lawyer Shri Subhash Jha was on his way
from Mumbai. The Bench agreed and placed the matter at 2.00 p.m.
4. At 2.00 p.m., Shri Jha came and addressed us, and pointed out
Sections 14 (1) & (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 together with
Section 479 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He also made various
B other submissions which the Court reminded him were not on the
punishment aspect of this case. He continued, however, arguing as if he
was arguing a review petition in the open Court. While Shri Jha was
arguing, Shri Nedumpara stepped in again and went on a long ramble as
to how he had not in fact impersonated Justice Vazifdar, which is one of
the many incidents referred to in our judgment dated 12th March, 2019.
C At this stage, Shri Nedumpara then tendered an apology to this Court by
way of an affidavit duly signed by him in the Court in our presence. The
affidavit reads as follows:-
“AFFIDAVIT
D I, Mathews J. Nedumpara, Advocate, aged 60 years, Indian
Inhabitant, residing at Harbour Heights, “W” Wing, 12-F, 12th Floor,
Sassoon Docks, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005, now in Delhi, do hereby
swear and state as follows:-
1. A Bench of this Hon’ble Court comprising Hon’ble Shri Justice
E Rohinton F. Nariman and Hon’ble Shri Justice Vineet Saran, by
judgment and order dated 12th March, 2019, was pleased to hold
me guilty for contempt in the face of the Court and list the case
for hearing on the question of punishment.
2. I happened to mention the name of Shri Fali S. Nariman to
F buttress my proposition that even legendary Shri Fali Nariman is
of the view that the seniority of a lawyer should be reckoned
from the date of his enrolment and nothing else. However, I was
misunderstood. I along with some office bearers of the National
Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms have
instituted Writ Petition No.2199/2019 in the High Court of Delhi
G for a declaration that the Explanation to Rule 6 of the Bar Council
of India Rules is void inasmuch as it explains that the word “Court”
does not mean the entire Court, but the particular Court in which
the relative of a lawyer is a Judge. I instituted the said petition
only to raise the concern many lawyers share with me regarding
H
IN RE: MR. MATHEWS NEDUMPARA 915

the immediate relatives practising in the very same Court where A
their relative is a Judge. In retrospection I realize that it was an
error on my part to have arrayed Shri Fali Nariman as a
Respondent to the said petition. I regret the same; no words can
sufficiently explain my contrition and regret. I also in retrospection
realize that I have erred even during the conduct of the above
B
case before this Hon’ble Court and I probably would not have
kept upto what is expected of me as a lawyer in the Bar for 35
years and crossed the age of 60. I feel sorry, express my contrition
and tender my unconditional apology, while maintaining that some
of the accusations levelled against me in the judgment dated 12th
March, 2019 are absolutely wrong, which are, ex facie, black and C
white, and as incontrovertible as day and night.
3. The apology tendered by me hereinabove be accepted and I
may be purged of the contempt.

D
Solemnly sworn at Delhi Sd/-
this 27th day of March, 2019 (Mathews J. Nedumpara)”
We have considered the affidavit so filed in the light of the incidents
that have taken place in the Bombay High Court as well as in this Court.
E
5. Given the fact that Shri Nedumpara now undertakes to this
Court that he will never again attempt to browbeat any Judge either of
this Court or of the Bombay High Court, we sentence Shri Nedumpara
to three months imprisonment which is, however, suspended only if Shri
Nedumpara continues in future to abide by the undertaking given to us
today. In addition, Shri Nedumpara is barred from practicing as an F
Advocate before the Supreme Court of India for a period of one year
from today. This disposes of the punishment aspect of the contempt
that was committed in the face of the Court.
6. A letter dated 23.03.2019, received by the office of the Judges
of this Bench on 25.03.2019, is a letter that is sent to the President of G
India, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court
of Bombay by the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the
President of the Bombay Incorporated law Society. The aforesaid letter
states:
H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A “We have come across, in the social media, copies of the following
complaints purportedly made against Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F.
Nariman and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran, Judges, Supreme
Court of India.
1. A complaint made with Your Excellency’s Secretariat by one
B ‘Indian Bar Association’ dated 20th March, 2019 bearing Grievance
No.PRSEC/E/2019/05351 (“the first complaint”), through one
Advocate Mr. Vijay Kurle, against sitting Judges of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman
and the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran, seeking permission to
prosecute the Learned Judges and withdrawal of judicial work
C from them for having passed a Judgment dated 12th March, 2019
convicting Mr. Mathews Nedumpara for having committed
contempt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It has been
addressed to Your Lordship the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
and a copy thereof has been endorsed to Your Lordship the Hon’ble
D Chief Justice, Bombay High Court.
2. A complaint dated 19 th March, 2019 made with Your
Excellency’s Secretariat bearing Grievance for Registration
No.PRSEC/E/2019/05242 (“the second complaint”) by one Mr.
Rashid Khan Pathan said to be the National Secretary, Human
E Rights Security Council, seeking similar directions/permissions
against the Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman and the Hon’ble
Mr. Justice Vineet Saran for having passed another order in another
matter. It has been addressed to Your Excellency and Your
Lordship the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.

F Copies of these purported complaints which have been circulated
in the social media are annexed as Annexure”1" and Annexure”2".”
7. The prayers made in the complaint filed by the Indian Bar
Association are as follows:-
“(i) Taking action Action be taken under Section 218, 201, 219,
G 191, 192, 193, 466, 471, 474 read with 120(b) and 34 of Indian
Penal Code against Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice
Vineet Saran for passing order by willful disregard, disobedience
and misinterpretation of law laid down by the Constitution Bench
of Hon’ble Supreme Court with intention to terrorize advocates.
H
IN RE: MR. MATHEWS NEDUMPARA 917

(ii) Immediate direction be passed for withdrawal of all works A
from Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran as
per ‘In-House-Procedure’.
(iii) Directions be given to Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and
Justice Vineet Saran to resign forthwith by following the direction
of Constitution Bench in K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India (UOI) B
and Ors. 1991 (3) SCC 655 as the incapacity, fraud on power and
offences against administration of justice are ex-facie proved.
OR
(iv) Applicant be accorded sanction to prosecute Justice Rohinton
Fali Nariman under Section 218, 201, 219, 191, 192, 193, 466, 471, C
474 read with 120(b) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
v) Direction be given for Suo Motu action under Contempt of
Courts Act as per law laid down in Re: C.S. Karnan’s Case (2017)
7 SCC 1, Justice Markandey Katju’s case & in Rabindra Nath
Singh vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2010) 6 SCC 417 for willful disregard D
of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in :-
a) Vinay Chandra Mishra’s case AIR 1995 SC 2348 (Full Bench)
b) Dr. L.P. Misra vs. State of U.P. (1998) 7 SCC 379 (Full Bench)
c) Leila David vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC E
337
d) Nidhi Kaim & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2017)
4 SCC 1
e) Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engineering
Works AIR 1997 SC 2477 F

f) Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs. Chief Justice S. Teja Singh, 1954 SCR
454
g) Mohd. Zahir Khan vs. Vijai Singh & Ors AIR 1992 SC 642.”
8. The prayers made in the complaint filed by the Human Rights G
Security Council are as follows:-
“i) Action be taken under Section 218, 201, 219, 191, 192, 193,
466, 471, 474 read with 120 (b) and 34 of Indian Penal Code
against Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran
for passing order by willful disobedience of law laid down by the H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A Hon’ble Supreme Court with intention to help the accused husband
in serious case of practicing fraud upon the Court.
ii) Immediate direction be passed for withdrawal of all works from
Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran as per
‘In-House-Procedure’.
B iii) Directions be given to Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman & Justice
Vineet Saran to resign forthwith by following the direction of
Constitution Bench in K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India (UOI)
and Ors. 1991 (3) SCC 655 as the incapacity, fraud on power and
offences against administration of justice are ex-facie proved.
C OR
(iv) Applicant be given sanction to prosecute Justice Rohinton
Fali Nariman under Section 218, 201, 219, 191, 192, 193, 466, 471,
474 read with 120(b) and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

D (v) Direction be given for Suo Motu action under Contempt of
Courts Act as per law laid down in Re: C.S. Karnan’s Case (2017)
7 SCC 1, Justice Markandey Katju’s Case and in Rabindranath
Singh vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2010) 6 SCC 417 for willful disregard
of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in :- P.C.
Purushothama Reddiar vs. s. Perumal 1972 (1) SCC 9 (FULL
E BENCH), Sciemed Overseas Inc. vs. BOC India Limited and
Ors (2016) 3 SCC 70, Surendra Gupta vs. Bhagwan Devi (Smt.)
and Another, (1994) 4 SCC 657, Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd.
vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. And Another AIR
1997 SC 2477, State of Goa vs. Jose Maria Albert Vales (2018)
F 11 SCC 659, Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah
& Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 370 (5-Judge Bench). In Re Suo Motu
Proceedings against R. Karuppan (2001) 5 SCC 289 (Full Bench),
Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack
de Sequeira (Dead) through L.Rs AIR 2012 SC 1727.”
9. It can be seen on a comparison of the prayers in both the
G
complaints that they are substantially similar showing that prima facie
the aforesaid Shri Vijay Kurle and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan are acting
in tandem. Also, the complaints are dated 20th March, 2019 and 19th
March, 2019. Para 3.14 of the said letter is significant and reads as
follows:
H
IN RE: MR. MATHEWS NEDUMPARA 919

“3.14 The Bombay Bar Association and the Bombay Incorporated A
Law Society have reason to believe that Mr. Nilesh Ojha and Mr.
Mathews Nedumpara are in tandem with one another. In Criminal
contempt Petition No.3 of 2017, which was initiated as a result of
various acts of Mr. Nilesh Ojha and his associates, Mr. Mathews
Nedumpara appeared for one of the contemnors. Similarly, in a
B
Petition being Writ Petition (L) No.1180 of 2018 filed by Mr.
Mathews Nedumpara against Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.J. Kathawalla
alleging “judicial defamation” and seeking compensation, Mr.
Nilesh Ojha appeared for Mr. Mathews Nedumpara. The timing
at which these complaints have been made after the bench
comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman and Hon’ble C
Mr. Justice Vineet Saran of the Supreme Court of India held Mr.
Mathews Nedumpara guilty of contempt of Court and also the
contents of the complaint of Indian Bar Association make it
apparent that these complaints are made to browbeat the Court
for having initiated contempt proceedings against Mr. Mathews
D
Nedumpara. It is pertinent to note that the Standing/Managing
Committees of all the three Bar Associations attached to the
Bombay High Court being Bombay Bar Association, Advocates’
Association of Western India, and the Bombay Incorporated Law
Society passed Resolutions appreciating and welcoming the
judgment dated 12th March, 2019 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court E
of India.
Copies of the said Resolutions are hereto annexed and marked
as Annexures “13”, “14” and “15”.”
10. We annex the aforesaid letter dated 23.03.2019 to the present
order. F

11. Given the two complaints filed, it is clear that scandalous
allegations have been made against the members of this Bench. We,
therefore, issue notice of contempt to (1) Shri Vijay Kurle; (2) Shri Rashid
Khan Pathan; (3) Shri Nilesh Ojha and (4) Shri Mathews Nedumpara to
explain as to why they should not be punished for criminal contempt of G
the Supreme Court of India, returnable within two weeks from today.
12. Given the serious nature of the allegations levelled against this
Bench, the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate Bench to
hear and decide this contempt case.
H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A Annexed letter dated 23.03.2019 to the present order

BOMBAY BAR THE BOMBAY INCORPORATED
ASSOCIATION LAW SOCIETY
Room No. 57, 3rd Floor, High Court, High Court New Building, North
Dr. M. Kane Marg, Boombay - 400032 Wing, Bombay - 400032
B
23rd March 2019
To,
(1) The Hon’ble President oflndia, Rashtrapati Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 004
(2) The Hon’ble Chief Justice oflndia, Supreme Court of India,
C
Tilak Marg, New Delhi- I 1020 I
(3) The Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court of Bombay,
Bombay High Court,
Fort, Mumbai - 400032
Re : Factual perspective to the frivolous Complaints made
D against Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. F. Nariman and Hon’ble
Mr. Justice Vineet Saran, Hon’ble Judges of the
Supreme Court of India and registered as
(i) Grievance No. PRSEC/E/2019/05351.
(ii) Grievance No. PRSEC/E/2019/05242.
E Your Excellency and Your Lordships,
The Bombay Bar Association is the oldest Bar Association in the country,
established in the year 1824 with recorded history ofover 150 years. Bombay Bar
Association has over these years relentlessly strived for protection of the
independence of the judiciary and protection of rule of law. Bombay Bar
F Association has played a pivotal role in protest against Emergency, protecting
personal liberties and anack on the judiciary in supersession ofjudges
particularly during Emergency.
The Bombay Incorporated Law Society is an association of Solicitors in
the city of Mumbai anached to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court with a history
dating back to 1894. The Bombay Incorporated Law Society has made valuable
G contribution to the legal profession including supporting and protecting the
independence of the judiciary over the years.
We have come across, in the social media, copies of following complaints
purportedly made against Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman and Hon’ble Justice
Vineet Saran, Judges, Supreme Court of India.
H
IN RE: MR. MATHEWS NEDUMPARA 921

1. A complaint made with Your Excellency’s Secretariat by one ‘Indian A
Bar Association’ dated 20th March 2019 bearing Grievance No. PRSEC/E/2019/
0535 l (“the first complaint”), through one Advocate Mr. Vijay Kurle, against
sitting Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of [ndia, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice
R.F. Nariman and the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran. seeking permission to
prosecute the Learned Judges and withdrawal of judicial work from them for
h
having passed a judgment dated 1t March 2019 convicting Mr. Mathews B
Nedumpara for having committed contempt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India. It has been addressed to Your Lordship the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
and a copy thereof has been endorsed to Your Lordship the Hon’ble Chief Justice,
Bombay High Court.
2. A complaint dated 19th March 2019 made with Your Excellency’s
Secretariat bearing Grievance for Registration No. PRSEC/E/2019/05242 (“the C
second complaint”) by one Mr. Rashid Khan Pathan said to be the National
Secretary, Human Rights Security Council, seeking similar directions/permissions
against the Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman and the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet
Saran for having passed another order in another matter. It has been addressed
to Your Excellency and Your Lordship the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.
D
Copies of these purported complaints which have been circulated in the
social media are annexed as Annexure “I” and Annexure “2”.
3. We would like to bring to your notice the following facts in this regard:
3.1. The complainant in the first complaint, Indian Bar Association, is neither
a recognised Bar Association nor a Bar Association attached to the E
Hon’ble Bombay High Court. We have reasons to believe that the said
body is a self- serving body floated by one Mr. Nilesh Ojha, Advocate
and Mr. Vijay Kurle and is used as a platform to intimidate the judiciary
as a whole and in particular to settle personal vendetta against Hon’ble
Judges of the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court oflndia.
3.2. Mr. Nilesh Ojha, the purported National President of the complainant had F
appeared in a matter before the Bombay High Court wherein an order
was passed against his client. lmml!diately aller the order, Mr. Nilesh Ojha
made various scurrilous and contemptuous allegations against the
Hon”ble Judge who passed the order. The videos of persons whose
interests were represented by Mr. Ojha and of Mr. Ojha making scandalous
and scurrilous allegations against the Hon’ble Judge were also uploaded G
on the Internet through ‘YouTube’ website. Mr. Yijay Kurle was also one
of the persons who gave interviews which were uploaded making
scurrilous and scandalous statements against the Learned Judge. Mr.
Rashid Khan, the complainant in the second complaint was also one of
the parties who gave interview and made scurrilous and scandalous
H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A statements. The Bombay Bar Association and the Advocates’
Association of Western India being the two recognised Bar Associations
attached to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court have already filed a Criminal
Contempt Petition in the Bombay High Court against various parties
including Mr. Nilesh Ojha, Mr. Vijay Kurle and Mr. Rashid Khan after
obtaining consent from the Advocate General of Maharashtra. The
B Contempt Petition was heard for admission. In the said Contempt Petition,
the complainant in the second complaint Mr. Rashid Khan was also a
Respondent. By an order dated 22nd February 2017, a Division Bench of
the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, after considering the videos and the
transcripts thereof, observed that the said materials were an attempt to
scandalise the Court and calculated 10 interfere with the administration of
C justice. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said Contempt Petition by
various orders also directed that the offending videos be removed from
the internet at large and restrained dissemination of the same / similar
videos. The Petition was admitted and notices were issued to various
Respondents including Mr. Nilesh Ojha, Mr. Vijay Kurle and Mr. Rashid
Khan as to why they should not be punished for contempt of Court.
D 3.3. The Division Bench further observed that Mr. Nilesh Ojha was threatening
to prosecute the judges of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and therefore
the Contempt Petition is of great importance to the institution of the
judiciary and concerns the independence of the judiciary. The matter
was directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High
Court for being placed before a larger Bench of 3 or more judges. A
E Contempt Petition is pending before a 5-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure “3” and
“4” are copies of the said Criminal Contempt Petition (No. 3 of 2017) filed
by the two Bar Associations (without exhibits) and the orders passed
therein. It is pertinent to note that in these contempt proceedings, Mr.
Mathews Nedumpara, Advocate appeared to defend one ofthe
F contemnors.
3.4. In the Contempt Petition, the Petitioners have also set-out at length how
in the past, Mr. Nilesh Ojha had initiated proceedings against sitting
judges and also his conduct as recorded in various proceedings.
3.5. In early 20 I7, the Bombay Bar Association and Advocates’ Association
G of Western India also passed resolutions deprecating these scurrilous
attacks on judges and expressing full faith in the Learned Judge of the
Bombay High Court against whom allegations were made. Copies of the
Minutes of Meetings where the said resolution was passed by the
Bombay Bar Association is hereto annexed and marked as Annexure
“5”.
H
IN RE: MR. MATHEWS NEDUMPARA 923

3.6. Mr. Nilesh Ojha, Mr. Vijay Kurle and their associates have a history of A
making frivolous allegations against Judges, if they do not get favourable
orders in cases they appear in. They have made allegations against various
sitting judges of Bombay High Court and “Indian Bar Association” is
their front which is apparently established as a self-serving association
to make frivolous allegations against judges and lawyers.
3.7. Not being satisfied with the contumacious acts, a vexatious representation B
/ complaint was addressed by Indian Bar Association to Your Excellency
in 2018 against Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.J. Kathawalla, a judge of the Bombay
High Court seeking permission to prosecute the Learned Judge and
making similar allegations and seeking similar directions. The Bombay
Bar Association made a representation to Your Excellency by a letter
dated 30th June 2018 exposing the ‘modus operandi of these persons’, C
their systematic attempt of making allegations against sitting judges and
even Advocates appearing against them. In the complaint against
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S J. Kathawalla, the Indian Bar Association had
made false allegations that the Learned Judge had a soft corner for
certain Advocates and sought a CBI inquiry and audit of cases handled
by the said Advocates. In the representation of the Bombay Bar D
Association, it was pointed out that each of the said lawyers had in the
past appeared either against Mr. Nilesh Ojha or against Mr. Mathews
Nedumpara and that they were being named only to malign them and to
deter the said Advocates from appearing against them.
A copy of the representation of the Bombay Bar Association (without E
exhibits) is annexed as Annexure “6” hereto.
3.8. Mr. Nilesh Ojha had earlier filed a malicious complaint dated 3 rd December
2015 with Your Excellency’s Secretariat seeking resignation and criminal
prosecution against Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Menon, judge of Bombay
High Court who had passed an order against Mr. Nilesh Ojha’s client and
issued criminal contempt notice against Mr. Nilesh Ojha for making F
scandalous allegations against Advocates appearing against him. The
complaint was rejected as it was without any verifiable fact. A copy of the
complaint status and grievance lodged against Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K.
Menon is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure “7”.
A copy of the order dated 22nd January 20 16 passed by Hon’ble Mr.
G
Justice A.K. Menon against Mr. Nilesh Ojha is annexed hereto and
marked as Annexure “8” hereto.
3.9. Mr. Nilesh Ojha through another client of his Mr. Gopal Shetye (who is also
one of the contemnors in the Contempt Petition filed by Bombay Bar
Association and Advocates’ Association of Western India) had got filed
a complaint in the State Bar Council against various Advocates who H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A appeared against him (Mr. Ojha) in Bombay High Court Suit No. 471 of
2016, the proceedings in which led to the initiation of the Criminal Contempt
proceedings as mentioned hereinabove.
3.10. Similarly, Mr. Gopal Shetye, with Mr. Nilesh Ojha appearing for him, had
earlier attempted to prosecute another judge of the Hon’ble Bombay
High Court, being Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.M. Kanade (now retired) and had
B filed a criminal complaint seeking prosecution along with compensation
for defamation of Rs. 500 Crores against the Judge for having passed a
judicial order against Mr. Shetye. The Sessions Court dismissed Mr.
Gopal Shetye’s application as not maintainable. A writ petition seeking
compensation of Rs. 200 crores against the Hon’ble Judge for having
passed judicial orders was also filed in the Bombay High Court, and
C rejected by an Order dated 5th May 2017.
Hereto annexed and marked as Annexure “9” is a copy of the Order dated
1st February 2017 passed by the Sessions Court and Annexure 11 10"
is a copy of the Bombay High Court Order dated 5th May 2017.
3.11. Mr. Nilesh Ojha in Suit No. 471 of 2016 initiated proceedings seeking
D prosecution of distinguished Senior Advocates, Mr. Aspi Chinoy and Ms.
Rajani Iyer and prayed that they be stripped of their senior designations.
The said applications were rejected and contempt proceedings were
initiated against Mr. Nilesh Ojha which are referred to hereinabove.
3.12. In the aforesaid Criminal Contempt Petition No. 3 of 2017 initiated by
E Bombay Bar Association and Advocates’ Association of Western India
against Mr. Nilesh Ojha & Ors., Mr. Nilesh Ojha filed applications seeking
prosecution against the office bearers of Bombay Bar Association and
Advocates’ Association of Western India who had affirmed the Criminal
Contempt Petition.
3.13. The Indian Bar Association also filed an application before Your Excellency
F dated 23 rd January 2019 numbered as PRSEC/E/2019/01530 against sitting
judges of the Bombay High Court being Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Tated,
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Colabawala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.J. Jamdar
for having passed certain judicial orders. The said complaint was signed
by Mr. Vijay Kurle. The Bombay Bar Association responded to the said
complaint pursuant to a Resolution ofthe Standing Committee and forwarded
G the same to Your Excellency’s Secretariat, bringing to notice the correct
factual perspective.
A copy of the said complaint and the representation dated 29th January
2019 made by the Bombay Bar Association are annexed at Annexures “11”
and “12” hereto.

H
IN RE: MR. MATHEWS NEDUMPARA 925

3.14. The Bombay Bar Association and the Bombay lncorporated Law Society A
have reason to believe that Mr. Nilesh Ojha and Mr. Mathews Nedumpara
are in tandem with one another. In Criminal Contempt Petition No. 3 of2017,
which was initiated as a result of various acts of Mr. Nilesh Ojha and his
associates, Mr. Mathews Nedumpara appeared for one of the conternnors.
Similarly, in a Petition being Writ Petition (L) No. 1 180 of 2018 filed by Mr.
Mathews Nedumpara against Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.J. Kathawalla alleging B
“judicial defamation” and seeking compensation, Mr. Nilesh Ojha
appeared for Mr. Mathews Nedumpara. The timing at which these
complaints have been made after the bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice
R.F. Nariman and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran of the Supreme Court
of India held Mr. Mathews Nedumpara guilty of contempt of Court and
also the contents of the complaint of Indian Bar Association make it apparent C
that these complaints are made to browbeat the Court for having initiated
contempt proceedings against Mr. Mathews Nedumpara. It is pertinent
to note that the Standing/Managing Committees of all the three Bar
Associations attached to the Bombay High Court being Bombay Bar
Association, Advocates’ Association of Western India, and the Bombay
Incorporated Law Society passed Resolutions appreciating and welcoming D
the judgment dated 12th March 2019 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
lndia.
Copies of the said Resolutions are hereto annexed and marked as
Annexures “13”,”14 “ and “15” .
4. The allegations made in the complaints against the Learned Judges E
ofthe Supreme Court of India under reference are false, vexatious and designed
to intimidate and browbeat the judges. The allegations are in respect of their
acts in discharging judicial duties. The remedy of a person aggrieved by such a
judicial order is to take legal recourse by filing an appeal or other appropriate
proceeding and a judge cannot be asked to be prosecuted for passing orders in
judicial proceedings, which a person perceives as wrong or contrary to law. This
F
is also clearly impermissible in view of the provisions of the Judges (Protection)
Act, 1 985 passed by Parliament. In fact, the Indian Bar Association has gone to
the extent of saying that the order was passed by the bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court for ulterior reason of protecting a High Court Judge. The said
allegation is false, scandalous and scurrilous.
5. It is thus clear that the complaints under reference are yet another G
attempt to scandalise, terrorise and intimidate judges of the Supreme Court of
lndia. The Bombay Bar Association and the Bombay Incorporated Law Society
have reposed their full faith and confidence in the Hon’ble Judges against whom
the complaints have been made from time to time.

H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A 6. The attempts like the present complaints are malicious and frivolous
attempts by disgruntled lawyers and parties to terrorise and intimidate judges
and sent them a signal that they will indulge in vilification campaign against the
judges. These attempts ought not to be countenanced. They are a serious threat to
the institution ofjudiciary and its independence which is the backbone of any
democracy.
B 7. We request that the complaints be rejected at the earliest and appropriate
actions be taken. We would like to draw your attention to another serious issue that
even the pendency of the application in the Secretariat of Your Excellency has
been abused and in the past, prosecutions have been initiated / threatened
against judges of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on the false and baseless
pretext that a lack of response tantamount to Your Excellency’s “deemed consent”
C for prosecution of the judges. In fact, the complaints under reference filed by
Indian Bar Association seek to contend that there was an alleged “deemed consent”
by Your Excellency for prosecution of a sitting judge of the Bombay High Court.
We, therefore, request Your Excellency to reject the aforesaid complaint so as
to thwart this scurrilous and scandalous attempt on the independence of the
judiciary and prevent interference with the administration of justice.
D
Yours truly

-sd/. -sd/.
Dr. Milind Sathe, Mr. Kaiwan Kalyaniwalla,
President, Bombay Bar Association President, Bombay Incorporated
E Law Society

Ankit Gyan Appropriate Bench to be constituted
to decide contempt case.

F

G

H