Gujarat HC rejects Yatin Oza's 'unconditional apology' for contempt of court

Saying that a "loud and clear" message needs to be sent that judiciary is "open to every healthy criticism respecting the fundamental right of freedom of expression," but at the same time attempts to tarnish its prestige will not be tolerated, a division bench of Gujarat High Court rejected the "unconditional apology" of controversial advocate Yatin Oza who is facing criminal contempt of court proceedings.

The bench of justices Sonia Gokani and N V Anjaria pronounced the order rejecting the apology of Oza on Wednesday while observing, "What speaks louder than the words is action. Words which have no backing of either intent or deed or action are hollow and lifeless. Words which are in fact lived with sincerity and commitment ingrained, only have the capacity to create an impact, or otherwise, they are words without soul and heart which wholly lack authenticity. Entire gamut of facts when dispassionately and objectively viewed, we are unable to accept these words as true words of remorse and contrition and therefore, request to accept apology even if termed as unqualified, cannot be acceded to. We are also alive to the genuineness of requests of both the learned senior counsels, whose towering support to the respondent also may not persuade us to act otherwise."

Also Read | Lawyers condemn efforts to browbeat judiciary

Oza, President of Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association (GHCAA), had made several serious allegations on Facebook live press conference on June 5. He had remarked that "The High Court is an absolute gambling den today, wherein only billionaires can gamble. If poor people gamble for five rupees at home, the police would arrest them. This is the situation of High Court. High Court can file a contempt petition against me." Oza had said this to make a point that during the lockdown it was difficult to get petitions listed for hearing in case the lawyers or clients were not influential.

Subsequently, the division bench took Suo Motu cognisance of these remarks and started criminal contempt proceedings against Oza. Meanwhile, a full court of the high court also stripped Oza from his "senior counsel" designation unanimously. According to reports, another full court, barring justices Gokani and Anajaria since they are conducting the contempt plea, on Sunday refused unconditional apology.

The bench headed by justice Gokani commented that "Any attempt to scandalise the court and browbeat the judges and thereby undermining the authority of the institution in our opinion cannot be taken lightly." In the 46-page long judgement, the bench has not believed Oza's argument that his remarks were a result of an "emotional outburst" and said "One cannot be oblivious that this institution for its credibility, trustworthiness and its independence, continues to rule in the hearts of common man to be its last resort against every kind of arbitrariness and violation of fundamental and human rights and to term it as a gambling den, as the Senior Advocate and the President of the Bar with authority, facts and figures and in the meeting of Press with ‘all requisite responsibilities’ could not be said prima facie to be the result of emotional upsurge or a momentary phase."

The bench has also taken notes of Oza's past cases when he faced contempt proceedings and the courts accepted his apologies. The order said that those past acts "would definitely be one of the guiding factors for the court to hold that apology tendered is not bona fide and lacks sincerity and therefore, an unacceptable proposition."

"Every time scurrilous remarks against the judges and the institution are made and when he realises that there is no escape route, the weapon of unconditional apology comes to his rescue. This was permitted in the past upkeeping a rich tradition of Kshama Virsya Bhushanam (forgiveness is the jewel of the heroes) showing magnanimity every time he acted, even hoping, trusting and believing in the wise words that every saint has a past and every sinner a future, not only it has emboldened the person to go on attacking the institute with more fervency, if still permitted, this institution would be inviting for itself more and many such unsubstantiated, unsustainable and baseless attacks from various quarters," the bench of has mentioned.