GHCAA President Yatin Oza Moves SC to Save His Senior Advocate Designation

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

On July 21, the Full Court of the Gujarat High Court from a meeting on July 18 announced that a decision had been made to consider and recall the appointment of Oza. The GHCAA has applied to the Supreme Court to overturn the decision of the Gujarat High Court and to withdraw his previous appointment as Attorney General (Yatin Narendra Oza v. Supreme Court).

Facts of the Case 

On June 7 The Gujarat High Court issued a suo moto criminal contempt notice to the President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association (GHCAA) Yatin Oza in light of him making “scurrilous remarks” against the High Court and its registry, on June 5 during a live conference on Facebook. During his live conference Oza levelled the following accusations against the High Court and its Registry: 

  1. Corrupt practices are being adopted by the Registry of the Gujarat High Court; 
  2. Undue favour is shown to high-profile industrialists and smugglers and traitors; 
  3. The High Court is functioning for influential and wealthy people and their advocates; 
  4. The billionaires walk away with orders from the High Court in two days whereas the poor and non-VIPs need to suffer; 
  5. If the litigants want to file any matter in the High Court, the person has to be either Mr Khambhata or the builder or the company. 

The Court believed that Yatin Oza had behaved most recklessly by levelling false, irresponsible, intemperate, and contemptuous allegations of corruption and malpractices against the High Court’s Administration, and The Court decided to strip him of his designation as a Senior Advocate. 

Petitioner’s Contentions

Yatin Oza has submitted that the notification issued by the High Court of Gujarat on July 21, notifying of a unanimous decision of the Full Court (Chamber) taken in its meeting on July 18 divesting him from the honour and privilege of ‘Senior Advocate’ is violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner has also challenged Rule 26 of the High Court of Gujarat Designation of Senior Advocates Rules, 2018 as ultra vires to Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. 

Oza, in his plea, said that he expresses his genuine regret for some emotional utterances, and reiterates it. However, he does believe that his conduct does not warrant withdrawal of his designation as Senior Advocate, mainly since it is not in any manner relating to or connected with the discharge of his professional duties and which would, in any case, be hugely disproportionate. 

Court’s Analysis 

The bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice NV Anjaria observed that the scurrilous remarks appear to have been made without any substantive basis and without any intent to know the truth, as also without approaching the Honourable the Chief Justice for any inquiry as to the Head of the Institution. 

As the Bar President has by his scandalous expressions, random, as well as baseless utterances have attempted to cause severe damage to the prestige and majesty of the High Court and thereby of an independent judiciary, and also tried to lower the image of the entire Administration and created demoralizing effect amongst the Administrative wing, this Court in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, prima facie finds him responsible for committing the criminal contempt of this Court within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and takes cognizance of such criminal contempt against him under Section 15 of the said Act. 

Furthermore, because of COVID-19, the Court was of the opinion that it was not the time where the bar and the bench could afford to divert their energy in any kind of bickering and are duty-bound to work together and discharge their responsibilities in a positive atmosphere. 

Court’s Decision 

On July 21, a Full Court of the Gujarat High Court notified that a decision had been taken to recall the senior designation of Oza. He was removed from the position of senior advocate, and they observed that Rule 26 empowers a Full Court of the High Court to divest an advocate of his Senior Advocate designation if he is found “guilty of conduct” which the Court feels disentitles the advocate to continue being worthy of the Senior Advocate designation.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -