"Final Act Of Forgiveness" : Supreme Court Keeps Senior Advocate Yatin Oza's Contempt Conviction In Abeyance Indefinitely

The Supreme Court today kept Senior Advocate Yatin Oza's conviction and sentence, imposed by the Gujarat High Court, in the 2020 criminal contempt case in abeyance indefinitely by invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, while cautioning that any future misconduct of a similar nature could revive the conviction and sentence imposed by the Gujarat High Court.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar pronounced the judgment in Oza's appeal against the Gujarat High Court's 2020 contempt verdict arising out of his public remarks against the High Court administration during the Covid-19 period.

The Court held that the reasons assigned in the Gujarat High Court's order did not warrant interference. However, the Court, extending a final act of forgiveness, exercised powers under Article 142 to suspend and keep in abeyance indefinitely the conviction and sentence awarded to Oza.

“The reasons assigned in the impugned order by the High Court do not warrant any interference by this Court. Yet, extending a final act of forgiveness, we are inclined to exercise our plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to suspend and keep in abeyance conviction as well as sentence of the appellant in consequence of this judgment indefinitely”, the Court held.

The Court held that no disqualification or disadvantage arising from Oza's conviction would attach to him during the period the conviction and sentence remain in abeyance, including disqualification under Section 16(4A) of the Advocates Act, which concerns senior advocate designation.

The Court further directed the full court of the Gujarat High Court to undertake a periodic review of Oza's conduct every two years. It clarified that if Oza commits any further act of a similar nature, the High Court would be at liberty seek revival and implementation of the conviction and sentence imposed earlier.

“The Full Court of the High Court shall undertake periodic review of the appellant's conduct at an interval of every 2 years in light of the undertaking of the appellant in paragraph 50 of the judgment. If the appellant is found to have carried out any further act of similar nature, the High Court shall be at liberty to file an application in the instant disposed of appeal seeking to give immediate effect to the appellant's conviction and sentence as directed by the High Court”, the Court held.

The Supreme Court also requested the Gujarat High Court to take a fresh decision regarding a 2024 incident involving Oza and the question of withdrawal of his senior advocate designation, uninfluenced by his conviction in the present contempt case.

“Needless to say, that the decision of retaining or withdrawing the appellant's senior designation shall be taken independently,” the Court said.

The Court said it hoped Oza would realise that the final act of forgiveness was being extended in view of the undertaking given before the Court and that he must continue to abide by it in true sense.

The Court also made detailed observations on the relationship between the Bar and the Bench, describing them as “inextricably linked” institutions essential to the administration of justice.

The Court stated that it was granting Oza a final opportunity to correct the course.

The matter arose from contempt proceedings initiated against Oza in 2020 over statements made during a press conference where he levelled allegations regarding the functioning of the Gujarat High Court during the Covid-19 pandemic. The High Court found him guilty of criminal contempt and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000 along with punishment till the rising of the Court.

While holding him guilty, the High Court had said that preserving the dignity and authority of the judiciary was essential and observed that contempt jurisdiction was the only weapon available to protect the institution from attacks on its credibility.

The High Court had also revoked Oza's senior advocate designation in July 2020. The Supreme Court later restored the designation temporarily in 2021 for a period of two years from January 1, 2022. The temporary restoration was extended earlier this year.

On April 7, while reserving judgment in the matter, Justice Maheshwari had observed that the Court would examine the issue from the perspective of institutional damage rather than individual grievance.

The Gujarat High Court had opposed extending magnanimity to Oza, arguing that repeated misconduct could not be ignored merely because he tendered apologies.

Headnote

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 2(c)(i) — Criminal Contempt — Scandalizing the Court — Reckless allegations by Bar President against the High Court Administration and Registry - The Appellant (President of the High Court Advocates' Association and Senior Advocate) was convicted of criminal contempt by the Gujarat High Court for branding the institution a "gambling den" and alleging corruption, nepotism, and preferential treatment towards rich litigants in matter listings during a live press conference - The Supreme Court held that the reasons assigned by the High Court for conviction warranted no interference on merits - Terming a Court a "gambling den" cannot be a permissible method to criticize its functioning, and severe emotional distress under pandemic pressures does not excuse conduct that disrupts public faith in the justice delivery system - emphasizing judicial magnanimity and balancing accountability with reform, the Supreme Court exercised its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to suspend the conviction and sentence indefinitely, subject to an express undertaking of "impeccable conduct" and a mechanism for periodic review by the High Court - Key Points Elaborated in the Judgment – i. Distinct Nature of Contempt and Recall of Senior Designation - Criminal contempt proceedings under the 1971 Act and the recalling of a senior advocate's designation under Rule 26 of the relevant High Court Rules are entirely distinct parallel proceedings - Divesting an advocate of their senior gown cannot be treated as a sufficient punishment to automatically discharge or bypass statutory and constitutional contempt actions; ii. Automatic Disqualification under the Advocates Act - Upon the conviction of an advocate for criminal contempt, they face an automatic disqualification from practicing for a minimum period of two years under Section 24-A of the Advocates Act, 1961, even without separate regulatory action by the Bar Council -By suspending the conviction under Article 142, the Supreme Court protected the Appellant from this consequential disadvantage, contingent on future conduct; iii. Forgiveness with Vigil - The apex court introduced a mechanism of "measured forgiveness with vigil," directing the Full Court of the High Court to keep a watch and periodically review the Appellant's conduct every two years - If any further contumacious acts occur, the High Court is granted liberty to move the Supreme Court to revive and enforce the conviction immediately. [Relied on Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of U.P., (2016) 8 SCC 335; Paras 44 – 65]

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 669/2020

Case Title – Yatin Narendra Oza v. Suo Motu, High Court of Gujarat and Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 485

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment