As per case facts, the appellant, Nilesh C Ojha, appealed against two High Court orders in contempt proceedings. The first order dismissed his application to implead a sitting Judge and ... initiated a new criminal contempt case against him, stemming from a press conference where he made allegations against the Judge. The second order dismissed his request to recall the prior order and sought disqualification of the five-Judge Bench, with the High Court also noting professional misconduct by the appellant and associated advocates. The question arose whether the High Court's actions constituted an erroneous and excessive exercise of contempt jurisdiction, particularly regarding the initiation of fresh proceedings, rejection of the appellant's applications, and findings of professional misconduct, and whether imputations against a Judge could be permissible under certain conditions. Finally, the Supreme Court, after a prima facie review, determined that no case for interference with the impugned orders was made out at this stage. It stressed the critical role of judicial independence and public trust, observing that allegations against Judges must have substantiated basis and be pursued lawfully to avoid undermining the judiciary. The Court directed the High Court to adjudicate all issues expeditiously, clarifying that its present observations were confined to the appeals and should not influence the High Court's independent decision on merits.