GHCAA President Yatin Oza moves SC challenging Gujarat HC decision to withdraw his Senior Advocate Designation

Yatin Oza, president of the Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association (GHCAA), has moved a plea in the Supreme Court challenging the Gujarat High Court's decision to withdraw the Senior Advocate designation earlier conferred on him (Yatin Narendra Oza v. High Court of Gujarat). .It has been challenged by Oza as violative of Articles 14, 10(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. .BREAKING: No Longer Senior Advocate - GHCAA President Yatin Oza senior designation withdrawn by Gujarat High Court.The decision to withdraw Oza's Senior Advocate designation was taken last month. The development followed a Gujarat High Court order initiating suo motu contempt proceedings against Oza in view of allegations of corruption levelled by him against the Court Registry..Criminal contempt notice against GHCAA President Yatin Oza for accusing Gujarat HC of corruption in FB presser, calling it a "Gambling Den".In his plea before the Supreme Court, Oza has submitted,."I have expressed my unconditional regret for some emotional utterances, and reiterate it, but I do believe that my conduct does not warrant withdrawal of my designation as Senior Advocate particularly since it is not in any manner relating to or connected with the discharge of my professional duties and which would in any case be extremely disproportionate."Yatin Oza.He adds that, "there was no reason to proceed with the Full Court (Chamber) proceedings when the Contempt Proceedings were pending on the self-same subject matter.".Oza states that he has approached the Supreme Court on the issue as there is no alternative efficacious alternative remedy. .Oza's petition explains that since the decision under dispute was passed by a Full Court of the Gujarat High Court, it would not be the correct course to challenge the same before the High Court. .Further, two of the judges part of the Full Court had initiated the contempt proceedings which eventually led to the passage of the order to withdraw Oza's senior designation, the petitioner points out. .As for his remarks against the Court's registry, Oza has submitted that it was not his intention to scandalise or lower the authority of the Court in any manner. ."It is submitted that he has not cast the slightest aspersion or made any insinuation against any Judge of this Hon’ble Court in (the) statements. He has also expressed there in no uncertain terms at more than one place that 'I have absolutely no complaints with the Hon’ble Judges and they have never favoured anybody.' The grievances were voiced against the functioning of the Registry... ", the petition states..It is added that while Oza honestly believes that criticism of the functioning of the Registry may not amount to scandalizing the Court, in retrospect he realises that "that the mode and manner of voicing grievances was unwarranted." On this note, the petitioner has also expressed his unconditional apologies, stating, ."He should not and ought not to have made utterances like corrupt practice in the Registry and used terminology of ‘gambling den’ even though the same were only with respect to the fate of the matters in the Registry, where some are and some are not listed. For that and for all my emotional utterances, petitioner sincerely tender his unqualified apology."Oza's petition.Oza goes on to submit that the emotional tenor of his comments were caused by the frequent calls he received as the GHCAA president from various lawyers raising grievances over the issue. ."The anguish in petitioner's utterances, use of unjustified language here and there needs to be viewed in this background and petitioner respectfully state that this would not warrant such a serious step of withdrawal of my designation as Senior Advocate", Oza goes on to plead..Oza has also assailed the Constitutionality of Rule 26 of the High Court of Gujarat Senior Designation Rules, 2018, which is contended to be ultra vires to Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution..Rule 26 empowers a Full Court of the High Court to divest an advocate of his Senior Advocate designation if he is found "guilty of conduct" which the Court feels disentitles the advocate to continue being worthy of the Senior Advocate designation..Oza raises a grievance that the term “guilty of conduct” under the Rule "covers bonafide criticisms of the Registry whereby it sends a chilling effect on free speech and destroys the independence of the Advocate’s Association which is a stakeholder in the administration of justice."."No Senior Advocate would ever even in good faith criticise the working of the Registry if the sword of divesting of Designation is hanging on his neck. The Leaders of the Bar, are respected for their frank opinion and experiences and because they stand up on issues to help younger and weaker sections of the Bar", the petitioner adds..Oza also challenges the Rule on the ground that there the pre-decision procedure for divesting an advocate of his Senior Advocate designation is undefined and vague. .".... such unfettered power, where the designation given after such elaborate process can be taken away has to be coupled with checks and balances, and there are none such in Rule 26, which provides full power and authority to Full Court (Chamber). A person accused of guilty of conduct based on the Contempt Proceedings surely cannot be divested first and asked to defend the original contempt proceedings when divesting proceedings are already completed."Yatin Oza .In view of these submissions, the petition urges the Court to issue directions to allow the following prayers:Declare Rule 26 of the High Court of Gujarat Designation of Senior Advocates Rules, 2018 as ultra vires the Constitution of IndiaSet aside the July 21 notification issued by the Gujarat High Court informing of the July 18 Full Court decision to withdraw Yatin Oza’s Senior Advocate desgination.Set aside the report of the Committee constituted by the Gujarat High Court Chief Justice whereby the grievances raised against the Court Registry in a letter dated June 5 were found baseless..The petition has been drawn and filed by Advocate on Record Purvish Jitendra Malkan.