Separate Complaint Filed Before Competent Authorities Seeking Regulatory Enquiry, Cancellation of Registration, Withdrawal of Governmental Recognition, Empanelment, Accreditation and Other Statutory or Regulatory Benefits Against the Three Media Houses
Advocate Nilesh Ojha, representing Satish Salian — father of Disha Salian — has issued defamation notice to the Times of India, Live Law, and the Indian Express. The notice alleges that the three publications carried distorted and defamatory reports on a recent Supreme Court order, misrepresenting the proceedings. The notice further states that separate contempt and other legal proceedings against Live Law and The Times of India are presently pending or are in the process of being instituted before the competent courts and authorities. It clarifies that the present legal notice constitutes an independent cause of action arising out of the impugned publications and is without prejudice to, and entirely independent of, all other pending or proposed civil, criminal, contempt, regulatory and statutory proceedings.
A Special Civil Suit claiming compensation of ₹12 lakh crore is already pending before the Senior Division Civil Judge Court at Nagpur against, The Times of India and Serum Institute of India. The suit has been instituted by noted farmer leader and Deshonnati Media Group proprietor and Chief Editor Shri Prakash Pohare who is being represented by Adv. Nilesh Ojha. In the said case the court has taken cognizance of the suit and has also issued suit summons and show cause notices on an application seeking attachment of the properties of the concerned defendants, including The Times of India and Serum Institute of India, pending adjudication of the proceedings.
Following earlier legal notices, some of the media organisations had taken corrective action. It alleges that The Times of India modified one of its impugned news reports after receiving a legal notice; Indian Express Online Media Services Pvt. Ltd. allegedly removed a news article and, according to the notice, gave an assurance that future reports concerning Shri Mursalin Sheikh would not be published without first obtaining his or his advocate’s version; and Live Law is also stated to have deleted certain news articles after legal objections were raised.
According to the notice, despite these earlier instances and despite being put on notice regarding the standards of fair and accurate reporting, the three media organisations have allegedly continued to publish reports which, according to Advocate Ojha, selectively omit material facts, misrepresent judicial proceedings and cause serious prejudice to his professional reputation. The notice contends that this recurring pattern negatives any suggestion of an isolated editorial error and instead evidences a continuing course of allegedly false and misleading reporting.
Advocate Nilesh Ojha’s legal notice to The Times of India, Live Law and The Indian Express, alleges that their reports concerning the Supreme Court’s order dated 20 April 2026 in Appeal Nos. 5673 and 5674 of 2025 are false, misleading and defamatory.
The notice, issued through Advocate Ayush Tiwari on behalf of Advocate Nilesh Ojha, has been addressed not only to the editors and reporters of the three publications but also to their publishers, managing editors, resident editors, directors and other persons responsible for editorial and managerial control. Among those specifically named are Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. (BCCL), the publisher of The Times of India, and its Managing Director, Vineet Jain, along with the entities and managements controlling Live Law and The Indian Express.
The notice concerns a Supreme Court order dated April 20, 2026, passed in appeals filed by Ojha against orders of the Bombay High Court in two suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against him over a press conference in which he made allegations against a sitting High Court judge Smt revathi Mohite Dere, who was later transfered to Meghalaya
It further alleges that this is not an isolated incident but part of a “continuing pattern” of adverse coverage of Ojha and his associates by these outlets, while coverage of parties on the other side of his various disputes — including some named former and sitting judges and others — has allegedly been comparatively muted.
Demands made
The notice gives the three organisations seven days to:
- Take down the disputed articles from their websites and digital archives
- Publish an unconditional apology with equal prominence to the original reports
- Pay ₹10,000 crore in provisional damages, without prejudice to a claim for higher damages later
- Give a written undertaking to seek Ojha’s response before publishing future reports concerning him
It warns that non-compliance will lead to civil defamation proceedings, a criminal complaint, and contempt-of-court proceedings against the publications.
It also states that the notice is independent of, and without prejudice to, other pending legal and contempt proceedings involving Ojha before various courts.
The notice also refers to what it describes as a history of litigation involving the concerned media organisations. Several civil and criminal proceedings have previously been instituted against The Times of India, Live Law and The Indian Express alleging false, misleading and defamatory reporting, with Advocate Nilesh Ojha and his associates representing the aggrieved parties in many of those matters.
The notice further alleges that the present publications are not isolated instances but form part of a sustained pattern of selective and hostile reporting directed against Advocate Nilesh Ojha and persons professionally associated with him. It claims that, over the past several years, the reporting of the concerned media organisations demonstrates what it describes as a predetermined editorial bias against Ojha, his clients and associates, including Adv. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, Shri Mursalin Sheikh, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, Shri Satish Salian, Shri Prakash Pohare, Awaken India Movement, Shri Ambar Koiri, Shri Yohan Tengra, Adv. Partho Sarkar, Adv. Vijay Kurle and others.
According to the notice, while extensively reporting matters capable of portraying Ojha and his associates in an adverse light, the media organisations have consistently failed or refused to report material developments concerning the opposite side, including matters relating to Rhea Chakraborty, Aditya Thackeray, Adv. Sudeep Pasbola, Serum Institute of India, Adar Poonawalla, Cyrus Poonawalla, Godrej, Adv. Nitin Thakkar, Adv. Darius Khambata, Justice (Retd.) Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice (Retd.) Deepak Gupta, Justice (Retd.) D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Revati Mohite Dere and others, despite what the notice describes as the availability of documentary records, judicial orders, expert opinions and other material warranting fair and objective reporting.
The notice contends that this recurring pattern of selective reporting, suppression of material developments and disproportionate coverage of allegations against Ojha gives rise to an inference that the editorial approach of the concerned publications is neither fair nor impartial. It further alleges that such reporting reflects a sustained pattern of selective targeting and institutional bias, resulting in the suppression or omission of developments concerning the opposite side and creating a misleading public narrative adverse to Ojha and those associated with him.
The notice maintains that these allegations form part of the broader claims made by Advocate Ojha against the concerned media organisations, all of which remain open to response and adjudication in accordance with law.
According to the notice, the media reports misrepresented the true scope and legal effect of the Supreme Court’s order by portraying it as an endorsement of the contempt proceedings pending against him before the Bombay High Court. Ojha contends that the Supreme Court had expressly clarified that its observations were only prima facie, that all issues remained open for consideration by the Bombay High Court, and that its observations should not influence the High Court while deciding the pending proceedings.
The notice alleges that the publications omitted these caveats and thereby created a false public impression that the Supreme Court had rejected his legal contentions or affirmed allegations against him. It further states that the Bombay High Court proceedings remain at a preliminary stage, with issues such as discharge and framing of charges yet to be decided.
Ojha has also alleged that the publications are part of a continuing pattern of selective and defamatory reporting directed against him and his professional associates. The notice asserts that previous legal notices had been issued to some of the media organisations regarding earlier reports and claims that several allegedly defamatory publications continue to remain online.
The notice relies upon several decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts concerning the law of defamation, fair reporting of judicial proceedings, journalistic responsibility and the constitutional protection of reputation. It further alleges violations of the Press Council of India’s Norms of Journalistic Conduct.
Among other demands, the notice calls upon the media organisations to remove the impugned publications, publish an unconditional public apology with equal prominence, furnish a written undertaking regarding future reporting concerning Ojha, and pay provisional damages of ₹10,000 crore, while reserving the right to claim additional damages in future proceedings.
The notice states that if the demands are not complied with within seven days, appropriate civil, criminal, regulatory and other legal proceedings may be initiated before competent forums.
According to the legal notice, the impugned reports relate to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 20 April 2026 in Appeal Nos. 5673 and 5674 of 2025, whereby Advocate Nilesh Ojha had challenged orders passed by the Bombay High Court in Suo Motu Contempt Petition Nos. 01 of 2025 and 04 of 2025. The appeals, the notice states, raised substantial questions concerning jurisdiction, judicial propriety, procedural legality and other important issues of law.
The notice states that the Bombay High Court had earlier observed that the legal issues raised by Ojha ought to be considered by the Supreme Court rather than in the recall proceedings before the High Court. According to the notice, one of the principal issues before the Supreme Court was the correctness and legality of that observation.
The notice further asserts that the contempt proceedings before the Bombay High Court have not yet reached the stage of trial. It states that in one matter, a discharge application remains pending for consideration, while in the other, the proceedings are only at the stage where Ojha has been directed to file his reply explaining why charges should not be framed. According to the notice, no charges have been framed, no plea has been recorded and no finding on guilt has been returned by the High Court. It therefore contends that the proceedings continue to remain at a purely preliminary stage and that discharge remains a legally available remedy.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s order dated 20 April 2026, the notice claims that the Court declined to interfere solely because of the preliminary stage of the proceedings, while expressly directing the Bombay High Court to independently consider and decide all legal and factual issues raised by Ojha. It further states that the Supreme Court clarified that its observations were only prima facie, were confined to the disposal of the appeals, did not amount to any expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy and should not influence the Bombay High Court while deciding the pending contempt matters.
The notice also relies upon judicial precedents which, according to it, establish that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and that every alleged contemnor enjoys the presumption of innocence until guilt is established in accordance with law after due process. It contends that the mere issuance of notice, calling upon a person to show cause, or even the framing of charges does not amount to proof of guilt or justify portraying the person as having been found blameworthy by a court.
Against this background, the notice alleges that the three media organisations published reports which fundamentally misrepresented the legal effect of the Supreme Court’s order by creating the impression that the Court had rejected Ojha’s legal defence or approved the continuation of the contempt proceedings against him. The notice specifically refers to the following publications:
- Live Law: “Supreme Court Approves Contempt Trial Of Advocate For Making Allegations Against High Court Judge In Press Conference” (Yash Mittal, 20 April 2026);
- The Times of India: “Contempt case: No SC relief for Disha Salian dad’s lawyer over aspersions on HC Judge” (Amit Anand Choudhary and agencies, 21 April 2026); and
- The Indian Express: “Supreme Court junks lawyer’s plea against contempt action for remarks against HC judge” (Express News Service, 21 April 2026).
The legal notice alleges that these reports, by omitting the Supreme Court’s express caveats and portraying the order as an affirmation of the allegations against Ojha, created a materially false and misleading public impression regarding the Court’s judgment and the status of the pending proceedings.
Times of India, Live Law and Indian Express have not yet issued a public response to the notice.
