Withdrawal Of Senior Gown From Yatin Oza For Contempt, 'Will Try To Find A Solution Balancing The Interests Of Oza And High Court ': Supreme Court

In connection with Gujarat High Court's contempt action and withdrawal of senior gown from Advocate Yatin Oza, the Supreme Court on Thursday said that it is in the process of working out a solution that balances the interests of both Mr Oza and the High Court.At the previous hearing, the Court had agreed to examine, on the suggestion of Senior Advocate A. M. Singhvi who had appeared for Mr. Oza, whether it can, considering that Mr Oza has served a particular part of the punishment, put his lifetime ban in abeyance, for the time being, subject to his conducting himself properly. In that case, for any future infraction, it will be up to the High Court to reinstate the life ban.On Thursday, the bench of Justices S. K. Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy told Mr. Oza and the advocates in the matter that the court is attempting to work out a solution in terms of what Dr. Singhvi had suggested and that the judges would have an order ready by the next date of hearing."We recognise what you are saying. Perhaps, we can find some solution in terms of what Dr. Singhvi had suggested. Partly, it was correct, though not wholly. We are trying to work out something. We need some more time. We will keep the order ready at the next date of hearing. It is a difficult task for us, we have to find the mid-way between what you want and what the High Court has said", Justice Kaul told senior advocates Dr. Singhvi and Mr. Arvind Datar (also for Mr. Oza) at the outset."I was just now telling my brother that as regards the person who made every possible complaint against all of us, because he gave an unconditional apology today, I still deferred his sentence", continued the judge. [On September 28, the court had held Suraz India Trust Chairman Rajiv Daiya guilty of contempt of court for scandalising the Court and wasting its judicial time by filing repeated petitions with contemptuous allegations against judges and court staff. Noting that "this is the first time that the contemnor has moved an application for unconditional apology", the Supreme Court on Thursday deferred consideration of this application for the time being and thus, deferred the imposition of sentence for the time being. On Thursday, the bench of Justices Kaul and M. M. Sundresh told Daiya,"This is the first time you have tendered an unconditional apology. It is not a pleasure for us to convict someone. We will defer the sentencing hearing till January. Let us see how you behave"]However, Justice Kaul added, "But his (Mr. Oza's) exuberance should not get the better of him- that is the only concern that we have. Because this has happened many times. What is bothering us is that he is the leader of the bar, a person of rich heritage, a person who knows the law- how can somebody like him lose his temper again and again? He must do something about his temper so that it does not occur now...I only hope that whatever has happened to him.. (unclear)"When Advocate Nikhil Goel, for the High Court, asked if the bench would like to hear him, urging that he has a few more points to indicate before the bench took its decision, Justice Kaul observed, "No, Mr Goel, we have heard you. We have closed the arguments. There is no doubt that what he has done is wrong. We heard you on two occasions. What are the other arguments? Every pleading, every application has to be read? Let us not take it beyond the scheme of things. We understood your stand and your concern. We are not averse to the stand. We have recognised your concerns. We have noted them down"The judge even stated, "Frankly, I have penned down something already. I wanted to discuss it with my brother and fine-tune the proposal."The bench listed the matter for orders at 2 PM on October 28.At the previous hearing on September 1, Dr Singhvi had pressed, "We are saying that the High Court, in an appropriate case, can withdraw the gown for a fixed period of time and not permanently. Temporal and spatial limitations are very much part of Article 14. This is the heart of the Constitutional jurisprudence of this country. What is reasonable necessarily involves temporal and spatial restrictions. The opposite side is saying that if you are bad, how can you be temporarily bad and so the gown has to be taken away permanently. I do not agree with this- You are taking away the gown as a punishment; the first punishment need not be the death penalty or life imprisonment or may not even mandatorily be 10 years. Your Lordships can give two years or three years! Taking away the gown permanently will be the death penalty!""It is an order of the High Court, but it would hit Article 14 on reasonableness. I am objecting that I be sent back to the High Court to apply for a new gown. Otherwise, this whole exercise is equal to a death sentence! Your Lordships' powers are wide enough to send a clear message and yet tie down the hands in the future for any manner of over-adventurism...Please set aside this order, but let there be an automatic reference to you ...

Withdrawal Of Senior Gown From Yatin Oza For Contempt, 'Will Try To Find A Solution Balancing The Interests Of Oza And High Court ': Supreme Court

Mehal Jain

The bench of Justices S. K. Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy told Mr. Oza that the judges would have an order ready by the next date of hearing.

Tags