On Friday, the Supreme Court took up Yatin Oza's plea challeging removal of his Senior Designation following the suo motu Contempt proceedings initiated against him by the Gujarat High Court.
The Top Court orally observed that withdrawal of gown from a senior advocate is almost a death sentence.
Assuring Oza that he would be given a patient hearing and that the Court will try its best to put an end to his anguish, Justice S.K. Kaul stated:
"I did see the record. There are a lot of question marks, in more than one matters, on his conduct. Yes, I agree that withdrawal of gown from a senior advocate is almost a death sentence"
Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi during the agruements stressed that the matter need to be considered on immediated basis as the nature of the punishment granted to Mr. Oza need to be examined.
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
To this, Justice Kaul observed:
"Even if we transverse so far, this cannot be an open-ended proceeding...such instances are not to be repeated"
Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi at this juncture, stated before the Court that it goes without saying that Mr. Oza will be cutious in future and that he has learnt his lesson.
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
He further advanced before the Court that he has appeared before the Gujarat High Court 8-9 times and that he men tioned brfore the Honourable Judges that the matter hangs on two or three points and stated that there has to be some balancing.
After listening to the arguement, Justice Kaul observed:
"Balancing has to be done. That is what we're trying to do between the parent court and the person. I am aware of both this side(Bench) and that side (Bar). You know, if it were to be an innocuous issue, how difficult it is to get a unanimous decision in a full court meeting. Something must have happened, which perturbed the Court so much for the full court to come to a unanimous decision. I am saying this de-hors the observations of the High Court, though some lee-way is given in some of the observations of the High Court. They were really pained at the conduct. This is not about sympathy only for the man but also for the institution. Proportionality has been extended also to life ban in certain case, we have to see whether this is that case or not. We have to do some monitoring, I am just putting thought in mind right now. Of course, your thought, on provocation etc, also matters. I have perused the material brought on record to tentatively put it to you"
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
Justice Kaul also reflected that he has been the President of the Bar, and thus has greater responsibility as he is being followed by young lawyers.
Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi when mentioned that Mr. Oza has apologised before the High Court 16 times, Justice Kaul noted:
"It is said that apology comes from the heart and not from the teeth. The Judges have given an impression that here it has come from the teeth- it may be wrong, it may be right"
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
Adding to it, he said
"When we as judges write judgments, the same judgment gains praise from one quarter and criticism from another. We accept it as a part of our job, so long as no motives are included. Of course, we are not infallible. I always say that a judgment is an opinion so everybody has a right to say whether it is right or wrong. You may say that the judge does not understand this, but you can't say he is an 'old fool'. There is a thin line to when motives are attributed"
Justice Kaul further stated how respecting the institution in every circumstance overlooking the personal matters and point of views is of utmost importance:
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
"You should be concerned that when you are trying to find a solution for the Petitioner, you are also responsible for the institution. You are there because the institution is there. The Judges are there because the institution is there. If you destroy the institution, you are transversing a line. You are crossing the boundary of maintaining the dignity of the institution to which both you and I are responsible. Otherwise, you create a hunch that people don't respect it."
The matter has now been adjourned for 8th December.
0 Comments