Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Suspend Contempt Conviction of Senior Advocate,

While hearing an appeal aginst a Suo Motu case takenup by the High Court of Gujarat, whereing the High Court has initiated the contempt proceeding against the Senior Advocate and later convicted him of criminal contempt, the Supreme Court indefinitely suspendented the sentence citing the its act of indfinitely "final act of forgiveness".

Background: The appellant, Mr. Yatin Narendra Oza, a designated Senior Advocate and then-President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association (GHCAA), was convicted of criminal contempt by the Gujarat High Court in 2020. The proceedings were triggered by a live Facebook press conference where Oza leveled serious allegations of corruption against the High Court Registry, claimed "forum shopping" was prevalent, and termed the institution a "gambling den" that favored only the wealthy. Consequently, the High Court sentenced him "till rising of the court," imposed a fine, and the Full Court unanimously recalled his senior designation. While the Supreme Court had previously restored his senior gown temporarily in separate proceedings, the present appeal challenged the validity of the underlying contempt conviction.

Thought the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on merits, but in an unprecendented move, invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to suspend the conviction and sentence indefinitely.

The Bench observed that while Oza’s observed that the remarks were "intemperate, scurrilous and completely irresponsible,". The Bench further observed that the appeallant he had already endured significant professional and social hardship, including the loss of his senior designation for over a year and the Apex Court took a "measured forgiveness," directing that the conviction remain in abeyance subject to a biennial review of Oza’s conduct by the High Court.

The Apex Court set aside the disqualification or disadvantage arising out of the Appellant’s conviction under the 1971 Act shall attract, including the disqualification under Section 24-A of the Advocates Act, 1961 and requested the High Court to take a fresh decision in respect of the withdrawal of senior designation afresh, without influenced by the Appellant’s conviction.

The remarks of the appellant, as he argued, were a spontaneous emotional reaction to the suffering of junior advocates during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, the Apex Court rejected this as a legal excuse, holding that a leader of the Bar cannot let "emotional volatility" dictate their actions, especially when such conduct disrupts public faith in the justice delivery system and observed that maxim ‘honos habet onus – honor carries responsibility’.

This judgment of the Apex Court serves as a profound meditation on the delicate equilibrium required between the Bar and the Bench- the co-equal pillars of justice as observed by the Court as "two wheels of the chariot of justice". It emphasized that the dignity of the Bench and the honor of the Bar are mutually reflective; if one pillar loses its footing, the entire ecosystem risks collapse. Thus, by invoking Article 142 the Supreme Court suspended the contempt conviction.

CORAM: JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWAR, JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR. .