'Will Consider If There's Institutional Damage' : Supreme Court Reserves Order In Yatin Oza's Contempt Case

The Supreme Court today reserved orders in Senior Advocate Yatin Oza's appeal against the Gujarat High Court order of 2020 which convicted him for criminal contempt over his levelling allegations of maladministration of justice against the High Court.While reserving orders, Justice JK Maheshwari said that the Court will watch the videos of the subject incident and examine the case from the lens of the "institution" (High Court)."What the Court is considering is whether damage is to an individual or the institution? Once institutional damage is there, then we have to think in a different manner" said Justice Maheshwari.A bench of Justice Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar heard the matter. Senior Advocates KK Venugopal, Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Kapil Sibal, Arvind Datar and C Aryama Sundaram argued in Oza's favor, while Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria represented the Gujarat High Court.During the hearing, Sibal urged for a quietus to be put to the matter, emphasizing that Oza has been punished enough, having spent 2 years and 5 months without a Senior's gown. The senior counsel stressed that Oza has already apologized and expressed regret for all past incidents. "Why should this continue even for a minute?" he asked.Singhvi, on his part, contended that Oza must get back the chance to lead a normal life as a lawyer at some point. He asserted that the opposer - the High Court - has made its point and must not oppose beyond a certain point. The senior counsel specifically questioned the latest objections filed by the High Court in Oza's case highlighting 3 issues - (i) Continuing arguments after dictation of order (ii) Arguing a case where the AoR did not have a vakalatnama, and (iii) Alleging "forum shopping" in a case.It was contended that in the ecosystem of which the Bar and the Bench are part, certain things happen in the heat of the moment. However, any punishment accruing from an alleged contumacious conduct must be proportionate. Singhvi pressed that the case against Oza was one of raking up past issues, which were adjudicated and closed.With regard to the 3 issues in the High Court's objections, Venugopal also said that the High Court has taken objection to "non-issues". The senior counsel also commented that Oza has been humiliated sufficiently and has apologized again and again. He urged that Oza's apology is sincere and the matter should now be closed.Hansaria, for the High Court, opposed a plea for the Court showing magnanimity in Oza's case, highlighting that he called the High Court a "gambling den". He emphasized that the High Court has nothing personal against Oza; rather, it is a matter of honor of the institution. The senior counsel further pointed to the use of the words "slap, say sorry, and forget" in a judgment, saying, "slap, say sorry, and repeat" must not be allowed.After Hansaria argued for the High Court, Datar attempted to give the bench the context in which Oza made the impugned remarks. Firstly, he highlighted that a quietus had been put to the contempt proceedings arising out of previous incidents in 2006 and 2016, as Oza apologized and his apology was accepted.Explaining the provocations, Datar said that in 2006, the concerned judge issued over 300 contempt notices to members of the Bar and the final straw was issuance of a contempt notice to a 70 year old advocate (over a phone reminder for heart medicine beeping during a court hearing). He claimed that an apology was tendered and the matter closed.In 2016, Datar said, the issue was non-implementation of the transfer order of 1 out of 2 judges, which had the entire Bar incensed. The matter reached the Supreme Court, which accepted Oza's apology and the matter was closed.Thereafter, in connection with the press conference in 2020 and Oza's remarks, Datar said that he would not try to justify the remarks in any manner, but explained the context in which they were made. He claimed that in 2020 (when Covid-19 pandemic hit), matters of some advocates were getting listed on the very next day, but those of others were not getting listed (despite being bail matters). Oza, as President of the Bar, was getting repeated messages and complaints. Two advocates, having no work, had to give up practice and join food-delivery platforms Swiggy/Zomato as salespersons to make a living. In this emotionally charged atmosphere, certain remarks were made.At this point, Justice Maheshwari questioned whether even such a dire situation would justify making the kind of statement that was made. Datar answered in the negative, but added, "we have apologized and suffered. Just imagine, if my gown is removed from 2026 to 2028, what is my position in the Bar?"Datar also submitted that the use of the words "gambling den" was inappropriate and a punishment was called for, but the question was "to what extent". The hearing ended, with the bench calling on the parties to file their submissions/brief note.BackgroundVide the impugned order, in October 2020,...

'Will Consider If There's Institutional Damage' : Supreme Court Reserves Order In Yatin Oza's Contempt Case

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

'Will Consider If There's Institutional Damage' : Supreme Court Reserves Order In Yatin Oza's Contempt Case

Debby Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers