Back
2021 Supreme(SC) 629
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.
Yatin Narendra Oza – Petitioner
Versus
High Court Of Gujarat – Respondent
Writ Petition(Civil) No.734 of 2020
Decided On : 28-10-2021
For the Petitioner(s):Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Arvind Dattar, Shekhar Naphade, Pravin H Parekh, Mihir Joshi, Rasesh Oza, Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Kruti Shah, Aditya Gupta, Dharita P Malkan, Deepa Gorasia, Alok Kumar, Nandini Chhabra, Bhavna Sarkar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Nikhil Goel, Naveen Goel, Vinay Mathew, Dushyant Dave, E.C. Agrawala, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt of Court by Senior Advocate – Designation as a Senior Counsel in terms of Rules framed under Advocates Act, 1961 does not create a right much less a fundamental right in favour of petitioner.
Headnote:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Contempt of Court by Senior Advocate – Petitioner wrote a letter to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India making serious allegations against a senior-most Judge of High Court in his capacity as President of Bar Association – Petitioner then transgressed all limits by circulating letter in Bar Association’s WhatsApp group, three days after calling High Court a “Gamblers Den” – Each of members of Full Court individually felt that apology was only a paper apology – Privilege of gown was withdrawn – Designation as a Senior Counsel in terms of Rules framed under Advocates Act, 1961 does not create a right much less a fundamental right in favour of petitioner – Withdrawal of privilege by those who conferred it would not make it justiciable at all especially since such withdrawal is not a bar to be granted such privilege again – Withdrawal of designation was stated to be the most severe punishment for any Senior Advocate – There is no real infringement of fundamental rights of petitioner – Ends of justice would be served by seeking to temporarily restore the designation of petitioner for a period of two years from 1.1.2022 – It is High Court which will watch and can best decide how petitioner behaves and conducts himself as a senior counsel without any further opportunity – It will be for High Court to take a final call whether his behaviour is acceptable in which case High Court can decide to continue with his designation temporarily or restore it permanently – If there is any infraction in conduct of petitioner within this period of two years, High Court would be well within its rights to withdraw indulgence which we have given for two years which in turn is predicated on assurances given by petitioner and his Counsel for immaculate behaviour without giving any cause to High Court to find fault with his conduct – Fate of petitioner is dependent on his appropriate conduct as a senior Counsel before his own High Court. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
The privilege of the Senior’s gown has been withdrawn unanimously by a Full Bench of Gujarat High Court and that is what is sought to be assailed in the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Findings of Court:
In the proceedings before the Full Court also it was submitted that at the threshold an apology had been submitted. However, the Full Court had opined that even if the apology would have been given at the first instance, still the apology would not have been accepted as it was not submitted at the threshold. The consequence of the decision of the Full Court is stated to be that the contempt proceedings became fait accompli.
Result : Writ Petition disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. One more chance after the last chance. That appears to be what is sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Yatin Narendra Oza counsel with many years standing, President of the Bar Association of the High Court of Gujarat on many occasions, and an erstwhile designated Senior Advocate. The privilege of the Senior’s gown has been withdrawn unanimously by a Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court and that is what is sought to be assailed in the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
2. This is not the petitioner’s first run in with the High Court or for that matter the Supreme Court. The problem appears to be that the petitioner does not seem to keep a balance between his role as a senior counsel and as President of the Bar Association and, thus, crosses the Lakshman Rekha repeatedly. In the written note filed on behalf of the Gujarat High Court (for short ‘High Court’), it has been pointed out that he made certain utterances in 2006 against two named Judges, casting aspersions on their faith and their allegiance to the Constitution of India and the laws; claiming that they had instead mortgaged the same with the political powers that be at that time. This resulted in the issuance of a notice of contempt on 27.4.2006 and his role was commented upon in the earlier orders dated 30.8.2006 and 12.10.2006. Though they were finally expunged by this Court, seeking to give a long rope to the petitioner. The petitioner’s apology was accepted with an undertaking, which was reported in Yatin Narendra Oza v. Khemchand Rajaram Koshti and Ors., (2016) 15 SCC 236
3. On 21.03.2020, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India making serious allegations against a senior-most Judge of the High Court in his capacity as President of the Bar Association. The petitioner then transgressed all limits by circulating the letter in the Bar Association’s WhatsApp group on 8.6.2020, three days after calling the High Court a “Gamblers Den”. The WhatsApp messages were circulated by holding a Press Conference 05.06.2020 (“Press Conference”), thereby making allegations of impropriety against the Institution of the High Court itself.
4. Dual proceedings arose against the petitioner – one of contempt and the other of a notice as to why the privilege of the gown should not be withdrawn. It is the say of the petitioner that he submitted an apology at the threshold in both these proceedings. Be that as it may, the Full Court unanimously found that his apology was not genuine. The rationale, as apparent from both the proceedings, is that the first apology arose on 16.7.2020, i.e., after 41 days, during which time every attempt was made to justify the conduct on merits and the apology was tendered as a matter of last resort. There was no contrition or remorse prior to that. The apology has been labelled as a repeated behaviour of what would amount to “slap, say sorry, and forget”. Since the statements issued by the petitioner caused huge damage to the Court and could not be repaired by the apology, the same was not accepted. The statements were not made in the heat of the moment, but were planned by way of a live telecast. Each of the members of the Full Court individually felt that the apology was only a paper apology. The privilege of the gown was withdrawn.
5. We may note at the threshold that the High Court has objected to the maintainability of a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The designation as a Senior Counsel in terms of the Rules framed under the Advocates Act, 1961 does not create a right much less a fundamental right in favour of the petitioner. Thus, it was submitted that what has been withdrawn is a ‘privilege’ and not a ‘right’. The very nature of conferment of a designation is submitted to be a privilege (Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766) and, thus, the withdrawal of the privilege by those who conferred it would
