YATIN NARENDRA OZA versus HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 849 · Decided: 28-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
849
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 849
849
YATIN NARENDRA OZA
v.
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.734 of 2020)
OCTOBER 28, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Arts.32, 142 – Withdrawal of Senior
Advocate’s gown – Petition u/Art.32 – Maintainability of – Petitioner-
erstwhile 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of Senior’s gown withdrawn unanimously by Full Bench of the High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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
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]
Yatin Narendra Oza vs Khemchand Rajaram Koshti and
Ors. (2016) 15 SCC 236 : [2016] 4 SCR 756; Indira
Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 :
[2017] 10 SCR 478; Modern Dental College v. State
of M.P (2016) 7 SCC 353 : [2016] 3 SCR 579
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2016] 4 SCR 756
referred to
Para 2
[2017] 10 SCR 478
referred to
Para 5
[2016] 3 SCR 579
referred to
Para 10
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.734
of 2020
(Under article 32 of the constitution of india)
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Arvind Datar, Shekhar Naphade,
Pravin H Parekh, Mihir Joshi, Rasesh Oza, Sr. Advs., Purvish Jitendra
Malkan, Ms. Kruti Shah, Aditya Gupta, Ms. Dharita P. Malkan, Ms.
Deepa Gorasia, Alok Kumar, Ms. Nandini Chhabra, Ms. Bhavna Sarkar,
Advs. for the Petitioner.
Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv., Nikhil Goel, Ms. Naveen Goel, Vinay
Mathew, E. C. Agrawala, Advs. for the Respondent.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
851
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 C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.