"No brazen act can be permitted nor can his good deeds be a licence to attack Court", Gujarat HC while convicting Yatin Oza for contempt

In its October 6 verdict convicting Yatin Oza for contempt of Court, the Gujarat High Court has reasoned that the indiscriminate and baseless utterances made by Oza caused serious damage to the majesty of the Court and was a clear attempt to lower the image of the independent judiciary by attacking both the administrative wing and the judicial wing..In view of the same, the Bench of Justices Sonia Gokani and NV Anjaria has also opined that thel lawyer's past good deeds cannot prove to be a licence to attack the Court. .The judgment notes that any lawyer is expected to serve the society while earning his livelihood with dignity. The higher one gets up the ladder, the more a lawyer is expected to serve society. However, the Bench cautions, ."... no one has become so big than the institution itself that in the name of taking up the cause of advocates, he or she can go to any extent of tarnishing the image of the institution by his expression and utterances. No brazen act can be permitted nor can his good deeds can prove to be a licence to attack the Court."."What needs to be seen by the Court is that even if someone attempts to attack the Court, the gravity shall have to be examined. Even the number of times it may have happened is even not important. A solitary incident can become very serious."Gujarat High Court.To evaluate the allegations of corruption by the Court's registry made by Oza in his Facebook press conference (which had triggered the suo motu contempt proceedings), the Bench also perused the grievance forms submitted by lawyers to Oza as the GHCAA president. The Court observed, ."Even if there were grievances and complaints of learned advocates and assuming those were felt by the President to be actually genuine … no one has whispered of corrupt practice much less serious malpractices or blaming the system to be meant for rich and resourceful only.".Other reasons given by the Bench in finding Oza guilty of contempt of court include the following:."Registry" is also a part of "Court: The Court has reiterated, "Registry is an integral part of the Court and held unfailingly and indubitably that any attack on the Registry would mean an attack on the Court." The Court added that if Oza's utterances were viewed, even without context, it would be apparent that the lawyer meant to attack the very dispensation of justice, and not just the Registry. .The dignity of Court and people's faith in the administration of justice must not be terminated on the basis of unverified reporting: This principle is all the more applicable to a lawyer who should knows the laws better, the Court said. The Bench adds that Oza's allegations of corruption on the part of the High Court registry sent out a clear and loud message to the public from his Chair as President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association (GHCAA) that the common man has misplaced its faith in the justice dispensation system. .Corruption allegations are absolutely without basis: The Court placed considerable reliance on the report filed by a three-Judge committee of the High Court on this count, which had held that the concerns raised by Oza (that there was a selective listing of cases to favour some litigants over others) were baseless. Further, the Bench noted that in all the individual grievances received by Oza as the GHCAA president, there was nothing to suggest that there were grievances by other lawyers over only "only the rich and the billionaires getting justice." .Serious and unpalatable utterances are the product of Oza's own brainchild: Referring to the demands made for resuming the physical functioning of the High Court, the Bench observed, "Had this been the result of genuine concern for the junior advocates, the same could never have been in complete disregard to the ground realities." The Bench also expressed its disapproval over Oza having approached the media with his allegations, instead of sending a letter to the Chief Justice seeking solutions. In the course of its judgment, the Court also remarked that in view of the prevaling COVID-19 situation, "it cannot overlook the pressing need of ensuring safety of all those employees who serve on administrative and judicial wings as employees.".Defence of fair criticism would hardly be acceptable: The Bench remarked that healthy criticism on the Court's present functioning amid the pandemic is welcome. In this case, however, the Bench opined that the Court's employees are being accused of corruption and bias without any valid basis, and "without having the slightest regard for hundreds of (such) employees working tirelessly day and night to ensure that the dispensation of justice does not stop, without bothering for their personal lives and the lives of their beloved at home in the Pandemic.".In the course of the judgment, the Bench also took note of allegations made that the cases of some cases were being selectively listed before liberal judges as opposed to strict judges. The High Court made note to remark that these are subjective perceptions based on the input given by counsel to the litigants. The Court added, ."... his labeling of strict and liberal judges is also possibly for the purpose of justifying the getting or non-getting of the order and is an angle presented by the advocate representing the litigants to the public at large. Every person would know merit and demerits of his case and the matters are being decided in accordance with law and then, it is matter of interpretation.".The Court proceeded to impose a Rs 2,000 fine and punishment until the rising of the Court for the day as Oza's sentence for contempt of Court. .The sentence was passed taking into consideration the past sequence of events, Oza's background, his standing at the Bar, the background in which the incident has happened, conduct post contempt notice as also his reiterative apology. The Court added that if Oza were to default on this sentence, he would be liable to 2 months' simple imprisonment. .On a request by Oza's counsels, however, the Bench has stayed the operation of this sentence for 60 days to allow Oza to file an appeal before the Supreme Court if he wishes to. .Read the Judgment: