Yatin Oza Contempt case: Gujarat HC directs that 3 Judge Committee Report be brought on record [Read Order]

The Gujarat High Court has directed that the report prepared by a three-Judge Committee tasked to examine Yatin Oza's allegations of favouritism by the Court's Registry be brought on record in the suo motu contempt case lodged against Oza over the issue (Suo Motu v. Yatin Narendra Oza).The Court was hearing Oza's Counsel, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, argue against the contempt prosecution by taking the defence of truth..Senior Advocate Datar claimed that neither the amicus curiae nor anyone else has claimed Oza's supposedly contemptuous statements were false..Rebutting this submission, amicus curiae Shalin Mehta asserted that a Three-Judge Committee appointed by the Chief Justice of the High Court had refuted Oza's claims, terming them baseless..GHCAA President's allegations of favouritism by Gujarat HC Registry factually baseless: Three-Judge Committee of HC [Read Report].In view of this, the Division Bench of Justices Sonia Gokani and NV Anjaria directed that the Report be taken on record since it also formed part of Oza's petition before the Supreme Court..In June, the Gujarat High Court had issued a suo motu criminal contempt notice to the President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association (GHCAA) Yatin Oza citing irresponsible, sensational and intemperate allegations of corruption levelled against the High Court and its Registry by Oza in a live press conference via Facebook..Yatin Oza has now been given additional time to respond to the averments in the three-Judges' Report..During the hearing of the case on September 30, Senior Counsel Rashesh Oza, appearing instead of Senior Advocate Datar conveyed that the respondent "did not attempt truth as defence".. He explained:.We have not invoked Section 13 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. We have merely stated that our allegations and grievances were not made in the air and were not baseless. This would not mean that the truth as a defence has been invoked.”.Noting that the amicus refuted this submission by stating that the defence had in fact been invoked, the Court refrained from expressing an opinion on the submission..The Court, after recording that the parties did not wish to make further submissions, closed hearings and reserved the matter for orders..Read Monday's Order here:.Read Wednesday's Order here: