"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.

“It is imperative to reflect upon the foundational relationship between the Bar and the Bench. They are inextricably linked, serving as indispensable wheels in the chariot of justice. To steer through the complex terrain of the law and achieve fair, equitable outcomes, these wheels must move in perfect tandem, bound by the shared devotion to uphold the rule of law,” the Court observed.

While the Bar acts as the fearless voice of litigants, the Bench functions as the ultimate custodian of the Constitution, tasked with interpreting the law, safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring impartial and timely justice, the Court highlighted.

The Court emphasised that the functioning of both institutions was deeply interconnected and misconduct by either side could damage the justice delivery system. It observed that indiscipline by the Bar obstructs the functioning of courts, while an engaged and patient judiciary enables advocates to discharge their duties fearlessly.

“Furthermore, it is the cardinal imperative that neither conducts itself in a manner that casts a shadow of disrepute upon the other. The dignity of the Bench and the honour of the Bar are mutually reflective. Conduct that diminishes the stature of one inevitably tarnishes the sanctity of both. If one player loses its footing, the other cannot stand tall. The tremor of an individual's fault resonates throughout the entire ecosystem, risking the equilibrium of institution itself”, the Court observed,

The Court further said that while accountability was important, judicial authority must be exercised with restraint and corrective guidance instead of punitive destruction.

“However, as with co-members within a family, a fault committed by one does not warrant the other to resort to punitive destruction. According to the accountability is paramount, but it must always be balanced with a patience to guide reform. The court wields considerable authority, yet the true essence of the judicial magnanimity lies in restraint. Measured reprimand and corrective guidance remain the wiser course over sheer penal consequences. The majesty of our legal system is preserved not through retribution but through mutual respect, shared responsibility and institutional grace”, the Court said.

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.

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 669/2020

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