While hearing the plea filed by Yatin Oza challenging the decision to recall his senior gown, the Supreme Court today orally observed that taking away a senior designation from a lawyer was virtually a "death penalty". .The Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Dinesh Maheshwari made the observation while hearing Oza's plea against the Gujarat High Court Full Court's decision to strip him of his senior gown after suo motu contempt proceedings were initiated against him.."We will try to find a solution", SC issues notice in Yatin Oza's plea against recall of Senior Advocate designation.The Apex Court, however, did not delve into issues raised as there was a pending matter. It will now take up the case for hearing on December 8..During the hearing, Justice Kaul stated that the Court would like to examine the aspect dealing with "proportionality" in terms of the punishment imposed. .On October 6, the Gujarat High Court held Oza guilty of contempt for his allegations of corruption in the Court's Registry, made during a Facebook press conference..The decision to withdraw Oza's Senior Advocate designation was taken in July this year. The development followed a Gujarat High Court order initiating suo motu contempt proceedings against Oza in view of his allegations.."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 his plea before the Apex Court, Oza has stated,."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 in plea before Supreme Court.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..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 apology, stating,"...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."