The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a heated debate over restoring Senior Advocate Yatin Oza’s designation permanently and quashing his contempt conviction, as argued before Justices J.K. Maheshwari and A.S. Chandurkar.

The bench observed that while damage to judicial institutions must be carefully examined, Oza’s repeated apologies might finally end the six-year-long case.

Court remarks on damage and purpose of judgment:

“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 remarked, adjourning the case to April 13.

Senior lawyers argue punishment is already enough:

Oza's defense included Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, A.M. Singhvi, and Arvind Datar, along with K.K. Venugopal appearing for the Gujarat High Court Bar Association. They said his punishment was already very severe and that his regret should now bring the matter to an end.

Kapil Sibal said Oza’s long suspension from his senior designation had a big impact and asked for the matter to be closed. “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,” Sibal submitted.

K.K. Venugopal said Oza’s statements during the pandemic were badly worded but not serious. “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,” he said.

Sibal further argued that continuing the proceedings despite regret was unfair: “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,” Sibal argued.

A.M. Singhvi, explained the issue as one about the relationship between the Bar and the Bench, saying,“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," Singhvi submitted.

High Court side stresses institutional dignity:

On the other side, Gujarat High Court lawyer Vijay Hansaria said Oza has had clashes with the judiciary since 2006 and 2016, including writing letters to the Chief Justice and making public criticisms. He said earlier leniency because of apologies should not now weaken 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,” Hansaria submitted.

Datar explains “gambling den” remark in COVID context:

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar conceded that the “gambling den” remark was made in anger during COVID,when many young lawyers were struggling, including some who had to work as delivery workers. He also said that Oza has apologised many times.

“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,” Datar argued.

He further said the controversy had continued over very small words spoken in anger.

“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,” Datar concluded.

Origin of contempt case in 2020:

The controversy began in June 2020, when the Gujarat High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Oza for making strong corruption allegations against the court registry during a Facebook Live session. Soon after, the Full Court passed a resolution taking away his Senior Advocate designation the next month.

Conviction, fine and brief jail:

In October 2020, he was convicted, fined ₹2,000, and briefly jailed until the rising of the court. He then appealed to the Supreme Court, which restored his senior designation for two years from January 2022. But the Gujarat High Court did not agree to make this restoration permanent or accept his apology, which has led to the present dispute.

Case Details: YATIN NARENDRA OZA VS. SUO MOTU, HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT DIARY NO. - 22060/2020

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a heated debate over restoring Senior Advocate Yatin Oza’s designation permanently and quashing his contempt conviction, as argued before Justices J.K. Maheshwari and A.S. Chandurkar.

The bench observed that while damage to judicial institutions must be carefully examined, Oza’s repeated apologies might finally end the six-year-long case.

Court remarks on damage and purpose of judgment:

“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 remarked, adjourning the case to April 13.

Senior lawyers argue punishment is already enough:

Oza's defense included Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, A.M. Singhvi, and Arvind Datar, along with K.K. Venugopal appearing for the Gujarat High Court Bar Association. They said his punishment was already very severe and that his regret should now bring the matter to an end.

Kapil Sibal said Oza’s long suspension from his senior designation had a big impact and asked for the matter to be closed. “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,” Sibal submitted.

K.K. Venugopal said Oza’s statements during the pandemic were badly worded but not serious. “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,” he said.

Sibal further argued that continuing the proceedings despite regret was unfair: “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,” Sibal argued.

A.M. Singhvi, explained the issue as one about the relationship between the Bar and the Bench, saying,“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," Singhvi submitted.

High Court side stresses institutional dignity:

On the other side, Gujarat High Court lawyer Vijay Hansaria said Oza has had clashes with the judiciary since 2006 and 2016, including writing letters to the Chief Justice and making public criticisms. He said earlier leniency because of apologies should not now weaken 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,” Hansaria submitted.

Datar explains “gambling den” remark in COVID context:

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar conceded that the “gambling den” remark was made in anger during COVID,when many young lawyers were struggling, including some who had to work as delivery workers. He also said that Oza has apologised many times.

“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,” Datar argued.

He further said the controversy had continued over very small words spoken in anger.

“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,” Datar concluded.

Origin of contempt case in 2020:

The controversy began in June 2020, when the Gujarat High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Oza for making strong corruption allegations against the court registry during a Facebook Live session. Soon after, the Full Court passed a resolution taking away his Senior Advocate designation the next month.

Conviction, fine and brief jail:

In October 2020, he was convicted, fined ₹2,000, and briefly jailed until the rising of the court. He then appealed to the Supreme Court, which restored his senior designation for two years from January 2022. But the Gujarat High Court did not agree to make this restoration permanent or accept his apology, which has led to the present dispute.

Case Details: YATIN NARENDRA OZA VS. SUO MOTU, HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT DIARY NO. - 22060/2020