Yatin Narendra Oza vs High Court of Gujarat

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

28 October 2021

Case No.

Writ Petition (Civil) No.734 of 2020

Result

Disposed

Bench

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, R. Subhash Reddy

Citation

[2021] 8 S.C.R. 849 : 2021 INSC 690

Headnote

Constitution of India – Arts.32, 142 – Withdrawal of Senior Advocate’s gown – Petition u/Art.32 – Maintainability of – Petitionererstwhile designated Senior Advocate and President of the Bar Association of Gujarat High Court had casted aspersions on Judges in the past – Eventually, petitioner’s apology was accepted with an undertaking – Again made serious allegations in his capacity as the President of the Bar against a senior-most Judge of the High Court – Contempt proceedings initiated; notice for withdrawal of senior’s gown – Apology tendered – Not found genuine – Privilege of Senior’s gown withdrawn unanimously by Full Bench of the High Court – Held: There is no real infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner – However, one more and last chance given to the petitioner– Designation of the petitioner temporarily restored for two years from 1.1.2022 – If there is any infraction in the conduct of the petitioner within such period, the High Court can withdraw the said indulgence given – Advocates Act, 1961.

Disposing of the writ petition, the Court

HELD: 1. This Court respected the views of the High Court but still endeavours to give one more and last chance to the petitioner. In a way this can really be done by recourse to Article

142 of the Constitution of India as there is merit in the contention of the counsel for the High Court that there is no real infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The ends of justice would be served by seeking to temporarily restore the designation of the petitioner for a period of two years from 1.1.2022. It is the High Court which will watch and can best decide how the petitioner behaves and conducts himself as a senior counsel without any further opportunity. It will be for the High Court to take a final call whether his behaviour is acceptable in which case the High Court can decide to continue with his designation temporarily or restore it permanently. If there is any infraction in the conduct of the petitioner within this period of two years, the High Court would be well within its rights to withdraw the indulgence which this Court has given for two years which in turn is predicated on the assurances given by the petitioner and his counsel for the immaculate behaviour without giving any cause to the High Court to find fault with his conduct. [Paras 11, 12][854-B-F]

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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

View Subscription Plans →