A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court on sentenced Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association (GHAA) president Yatin Oza to a penalty of Rs 2,000 and punishment till the rising of the court, after he was found guilty of committing criminal contempt of the court.
A veteran practising advocate, Oza was designated as ‘Senior Advocate’ in 1999. He has been president of the High Court’s bar association for over two decades. In May, Oza pushed for physical reopening of courts. On June 5, he addressed a press conference that was also live-streamed on Facebook, in which he made serious allegations against the administration, and on the dispensing of justice at the court. The HC did not take kindly to this.
Broadly, Oza levelled allegations of “corrupt practices being adopted by the registry of the High Court of Gujarat”, of “undue favour” being shown to “high-profile industrialist and smugglers and traitors”, that the HC functions “for the influential and rich people and their advocates”, and that “billionaires walk away with order from the HC in two days whereas the poor and non-VIPs suffer”. The HC also noted that Oza called the institution “a gambling den”.
The present case is not the first time that the Gujarat HC has initiated proceedings against Oza for being in criminal contempt of the court. In 2016, Oza had levelled allegations against two sitting judges of the HC. At the time, the HC had initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Oza, which came to be stayed by the SC. A subsequent apology later, the proceedings were put to rest.
In his arguments as well as in the apologies he has tendered, Oza has repeatedly stressed that he has been a long-standing distinguished member of the Bar, and that his transgression has been an anomaly.
He has also emphasised that he holds the judges in the highest regard, and it was only the lacuna on the administrative side that he had sought to highlight.
However, the court has been unconvinced by this argument, stating that the administrative side too, forms part of the judiciary — and that the allegations that he had made was unbecoming of the position and stature he holds as a senior member of the Bar, and only maligns the institution.
