Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, AM Singhvi, Arvind Datar and KK Venugopal urged the Supreme Court to close the long-pending contempt case against Yatin Oza. They argued that Oza has already faced enough punishment and his repeated apologies should be accepted to restore normalcy.
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday heard an important matter concerning the restoration of Senior Advocate status of Yatin Oza, who is also the President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association. The case also involves a challenge to his earlier contempt conviction.
A Bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar indicated that it would carefully examine whether the repeated apologies given by Oza over the years are enough to finally close the matter, which has been ongoing for nearly six years. The Court also highlighted that any damage caused to the institution must be taken seriously before arriving at a decision.
ALSO READ: Karthigai Deepam Row: Madras High Court Stays Contempt Proceedings Till April 8
“When something comes to the institution; the damage is caused. We will see how we perceive it. Going and writing a judgment of 200 pages is no problem. But it should solve the purpose. We will see the video. Let us see what we have to do,”
The Court has now listed the matter for further hearing on April 13.
During the hearing, several senior and well-known lawyers appeared on behalf of Oza, including Kapil Sibal, AM Singhvi, and Arvind Datar. Representing the Gujarat High Court Bar Association was KK Venugopal. All of them argued in favour of closing the case, stating that Oza has already faced sufficient consequences and his apology should now be accepted.
Sibal stressed that Oza has already suffered enough by losing his Senior Advocate gown for a long period.
“Put a quietus to this. I have been without a gown since 2 years and 5 months. Lordships have seen the video, there’s nothing in it,”
Venugopal also supported this view, stating that while Oza’s words may have been inappropriate, the concerns he raised during the COVID-19 pandemic were genuine.
“The issues in the videos are non-issues. He is entitled to say issues of law. These are such small things. His apology is totally sincere. He was the President of the Bar. This should be forgotten,”
Sibal further argued that continuing proceedings despite multiple apologies was unfair and unnecessary.
“He has already been punished. Your lordships have to decide whether enough is enough. He has already expressed regret. This is not the way a person who has expressed regret and apologised should be treated, this should not continue,”
Singhvi added that the issue should be seen in the larger context of maintaining harmony between the Bar and the Bench. He pointed out that the Supreme Court has the authority to bring the matter to a final conclusion.
ALSO READ: Trademark Battle: Supreme Court Restores Contempt Proceedings Against Hero Ecotech
“We are all in an ecosystem. It is the Bar and Bench. Therefore, as part of the ecosystem, how long will this issue continue? Today, the punishment is full, he has the right to have the life of a normal lawyer for sometime. You have power to punish him. It’s not that he’s a fool that he will not learn a lesson,”
However, the plea for leniency was strongly opposed by Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, who appeared for the Gujarat High Court. He presented a detailed history of Oza’s past conduct, including earlier incidents in 2006 and 2016 where Oza had made serious allegations against judges and later apologised.
Hansaria argued that this pattern of behaviour should not be ignored and that the High Court was justified in refusing to accept Oza’s apology this time in order to protect the dignity of the institution.
“The High Court has taken a very lenient view towards him and it may not be interfered with. This is about the honour of the institution. Magnanimity should not be compromised with the weakness of the institution,”
Datar, while acknowledging that Oza’s remarks were inappropriate, urged the Court to consider the difficult situation faced by lawyers during the COVID-19 pandemic. He explained that emotions were running high at that time, especially as many young lawyers were struggling to survive.
“The whole thing started in a very heated, emotional atmosphere. It can’t be said that the court is a gambling den. He has apologised for it again and again. We had pointed out that the statement must be understood in the context…During COVID time, the Bar was completely incensed. Two young lawyers were working as Swiggy and Zomato delivery. Use of gambling den was wrong. And I have apologised for it,”
He further emphasised that the entire case revolves around just a few words spoken in the heat of the moment, which have led to prolonged legal consequences.
“The tongue is a rope by which many hang themselves. Just two words ‘gambling den’ for which we are fighting for 6 years…I cannot justify calling the institution a gambling den. But something which was said in the heat of the moment…we have apologised again and again,”
The case dates back to June 2020, when the Gujarat High Court initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Oza for making allegations of corruption against the High Court Registry during a Facebook live press conference.
ALSO READ: BREAKING| CJI Gavai Dismisses Plea Seeking Criminal Contempt Against AG R. Venkataramani
In July 2020, a Full Court resolution stripped him of his Senior Advocate designation. Later, in October 2020, he was held guilty of contempt and sentenced to a fine of ₹2,000 along with simple imprisonment till the rising of the court.
Oza challenged both the conviction and the removal of his designation before the Supreme Court. In January 2022, the Supreme Court granted him temporary restoration of his Senior Advocate status for two years. However, the Gujarat High Court later refused to make this restoration permanent or accept his apology, which has led to the present proceedings.
The Supreme Court is now expected to decide whether Oza’s apology should be accepted and whether he deserves permanent restoration of his Senior Advocate designation, balancing individual relief with the dignity of the judicial institution.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Contempt
