GHCAA President Yatin Narendra Oza moves SC against Suo Motu Contempt Notice; claims that it destroys the Concept of freedom of Speech.

(Judicial Quest News Network)

That prima facie looking at the order of the Hon’ble Court it seems that the Hon’ble Court has made up its mind against the petitioner and has not left scope of defence that the petitioner can take up.

President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association (GHCAA) Yatin Oza has filed an SLP in Supreme Court Challenging the suo motu criminal contempt notice issued by the Gujarat High Court expressing anguish against the behaviour of Mr. Oza.

The Gujarat High Court in its Order mentioned ”This suo motu contempt proceeding has been initiated by the Court in wake of extremely unfortunate and absolutely unpalatable event that took place in the midst of Pandemic of COVID- 19 where accusing fingers have been raised against the High court , High Court Administration and the Registry by irresponsible, sensational and intemperate delivery in an interview by the President of the GUJRAT HighCourt Advocates’ Association ,the Senior Advocate Shri Yatin Oza in his capacity of the office bearer of GHCAA.”

The SLP filed in Supreme Court through Advocate Purvish Jitendra Malkan states that it is beyond the imagination of a common man the way in which Gujarat High Court has issues a suo motu criminal contempt notice to Mr. Oza.

Defending himself Mr. Oza relied upon the fact and says that it is stated that the ramification of the order will ultimately damage not only the reputation the career and the standing of the petitioner but also destroy the very concept of freedom of speech guaranteed to the petitioner sunder Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

The order of the Hon’ble Court is essentially denuding the petitioner of his rights arising out of principle of natural justice as he has been denied any opportunity of hearing as to why he should not be robbed of his designation as Senior Counsel.

That, the foundation, genesis and the base of the notice issued under suo motu contempt petition is not in accordance with law as same is based upon the incorrect interpretation of the statements of the petitioner of the press conference which was held on 5.6.2020 and which was streamed from the official facebook page of the petitioner in form of transcript. Recording as a whole could be perused, it would be evidently clear that the petitioner has not raised a single figure against the judiciary or the pious and glorious institute being High Court of Gujarat.

Petitioner has not made any allegations against any Hon’ble Judge of the Hon’ble High Court.

The petitioner was made statement for the reason that the Registry had been given an enormous H power to decide which matter would go to which Hon’ble Judge as there was no define roster assigned to any particular sitting Hon’ble Judge on that date.

Since being part of the fraternity we are well aware that every Hon’ble Judges is human and that every Hon’ble Judge is likely to have his or her own views or opinion and that putting a particular matter before a particular judge would change the fate of the matter. Had it been a pure matter of chance with the only intervention being the fate of the client, it would have been a different matter altogether. However, in this case, it was the Registry which decided the fate of the client and the end result of that matter because an enormous amount of discretions was given to the Registry to manipulate the listing of matters before the Hon’ble Court.

On June 10, the Gujarat High Court Bench of Justices Sonia Gokani and NV Anjaria stated that Oza had made the following, among other, accusations against the High Court and its Registry:

(1) Corrupt practices being adopted by the registry of the High Court of Gujarat,

(2) Undue favour is shown to high-profile industrialist and smugglers and traitors,

 (3) The High Court functioning is for influential and rich people and their advocates,

 (4) The billionaires walk away with order 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 person has to be either Mr Khambhata or the builder or the company. This also was circulated in Gujarati daily Sandesh titled as ‘Gujarat HighCourt has become a gambling den – Yatin Oza’.

The Gujarat High Court had Observed that these “Without caring for the truth, riding on the wave of populism, he appears to have crossed all limits by condemning recklessly the Institution. Being fully aware that his actions and above referred utterances are scandalous and capable of initiating proceedings of Contempt, he gave an open challenge to the authority of this Court in the very interview which is even worse than the very action”.

In his Plea Oza argues that “One of the main reasons behind this seems to be that the petitioner had appeared for an 18 year old rape victim who had been raped by a 67 year old Director of her own college. The Director was a very powerful person with big pockets and strong political connection. The accused Director had filed several bail petitions before and after charge sheet which were all rejected. One of the bail petitions was so rejected by the Hon’ble Court with a detailed order so much so that even on a request for the advocate for the accused to withdraw the same.

Referring to the behaviour and respect he shown in the past regarding the Judges and the Hon’able Court Oza States in his plea” When one of the Hon’ble Judges of this Hon’ble High Court was dished with discriminatory treatment and was sought to be made victim of political agenda, the petitioner had spear headed the movement against such an action and stood toll to protect the independence of judiciary.

The petitioner had received many warnings and faced setbacks in his career professionally and suffered even on personal ground because of this movement, however, the petitioner refused to kowtow to any kind of pressure and even at his cost travelled to Delhi to file an Writ against the said action of the Government.

This was not done to gain anything personally but with a view that the judiciary may not feel any kind of threat from the government and that the message can be sent across that the Bar stands with the judiciary and will fight for its independence. This was not the only cause that petitioner has fought for.

In his career of 38 years, the petitioner had spear headed many fights in which he has been personally and professionally attacked by various people with vested interest and powerful connections but the petitioner has never bowed down to any pressure technique and fought for the J independence of the judiciary. However, alas, it is for committing against the same judiciary that the petitioner has been held guilty of.”

 Oza has also raised questions on whether the way in which the order was circulated may link to a complaint he made against the registry over not intimating him of a bail hearing in a case involving an influential opnent.

Oza has also raised constitutional questions such as “

Whether there is a right to criticise systemic inadequacies and malpractices in the Registry of Courts and administration thereof in larger public interest under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India?