GHCAA President Yatin Oza Moves SC Challenging the Gujrat HC Decision to withdraw his Senior Advocate Designation.

(Judicial Quest News Network)

He States that unanimous decision of the Full Court (Chamber) taken in its meeting divesting the Petitioner from the honour and privilege of “Senior Advocate” as it violates Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. Petitioner also seeks to challenge the 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.

Gujarat High Court Advocates Association President Yatin Oza, has moved a plea in SC challenging the Gujarat High Court’s decision to withdraw the senior advocate designation earlier conferred upon him.

He states in his plea that the procedure followed in by the Gujarat High Court, particularly when proceedings were initiated against him by the court itself and that too on the ground of having made unfounded allegations against the functioning of the Registry, has “extinguished” his chance to defend himself.He Further States That “The grievances were voiced against the functioning of the Registry and though he honestly believe that criticism of the functioning of the Registry may not amount to scandalizing the Court, in retrospect, I do realize that the mode and manner of voicing grievances was unwarranted”

Last month, the full Court of the Gujarat High Court decided to review and recall the decision taken on October 25, 1999 to designate Oza as Senior Advocate. The Court has taken the decision under Rule 26 of the High Court of Gujarat (Designation os Senior)Rules 2018,  which states “In the event of the event a Senior Advocate is found guilty of conduct which according to the full court disentitles the Senior Advocate concerned to be worthy of the designation, the Full Court may review its decision to designate the person concerned and recall the same”.

The petition is filed through Advocate Purvish Jitendra Malkan  has submitted that the High Court has failed o lay down the procedure for divesting the designation, as there is no point system to analyze the guilt of conduct, and the same  is wholly “vague” and manifestly “arbitrary”.

“I have expressed my unconditional regret for some emotional

utterances, and reiterate it, but I do believe that my conduct does not warrant withdrawal of my designation as Senior Advocate particularly since it is not in any manner relating to or connected with the discharge of my professional duties and which would in any case be extremely disproportionate” He further states that there was no reason to proceed with Ful Court (Chamber) proceedings when the contempt proceedings were pending on the self-same subject matter. He submits in his petition that there is no alternative efficacious alternative remedy.

Since the decision under dispute was passed by a Full Court of the Gujarat High Court, it would not be correct course to challenge the same before the High Court. It is further submitted that “It is submitted that he has not cast the slightest aspersion or made any insinuation against any Judge of this Hon’ble Court in my statements. He has also expressed there in no uncertain terms at more than one place that I have absolutely no complaints with the Hon’ble Judges and they have never favored anybody. The grievances were voiced against the functioning of the Registry” Oza maintain that that criticism of the functioning of the Registry may not amount to scandalizing the Court in retrospect, I do realize that the mode and manner of voicing grievances was unwarranted. He should not and ought not to have made utterances like corrupt practice in the Registry and used terminology of ‘gambling den’ even though the same were only with respect to the fate of the matters in the Registry, where some are and some are not listed. For that and for all my emotional utterances, petitioner sincerely tender his unqualified apology.Petitioner submit that the procedure followed by the Hon’ble Court particularly when the proceedings have been initiated by the Court itself and that too on the ground of having made unfounded allegations against the functioning of the Registry, has extinguished any chance I may have had to defend myself. Petitioner respectfully submit that what he has been confronted

within the notice are final findings and conclusions that the complaints against the Registry were baseless etc., based upon an inquiry already undertaken and concluded by a Committee of three Hon’ble Judges on 10/6/2020, even before issuance of the subject notice and apparently accepted by the Hon’ble Full Court, which is to otherwise adjudicate inter alia on this very issue in these proceedings.

Oza Says that I have expressed my unconditional regret for some emotional utterances, and reiterate it, but I do believe that my conduct does not warrant withdrawal of my designation as Senior Advocate particularly since it is not in any manner relating to or connected with the discharge of my professional duties and which would in any case be extremely disproportionate. The withdrawal of designation after it has been granted would have a devastating effect. The likely impact on my professional profile and standing would be such that it would very probably be the end of my career at the Bar. I submit that this would be an exceptional and extraordinary punishment for life which ought to be reserved only for most serious offences also keeping in view the immense social and personal impact it would bring about.

Thus, the same as a direct impact of the practice of the law and

chilling effect on the free speech, whereby the defects of the legal

system whereby the lawyers are affected can be silenced. No Senior

designation Advocate would take on the system and point out the

loopholes if such is the response by the system. Hence there needs

to be committee prior to the decision of the Full Court (Chamber), just

like there is one before designation. The same infringes article 14, 19

and 21. Oza has also raised the grievance that “The words “guilty of conduct” presupposes and leads to the conclusion that there needs to be a committee which can give finding of guilty and naturally such committee would afford hearing to the person charged with the allegation”  In view of these submissions, the petition urges the Court to issue directions to allow the following prayers:

1        Declare Rule 26 of the High Court of Gujarat Designation of Senior Advocates Rules, 2018 as ultra vires the constitution of India.

2        Set aside the July 21, notification issued by the Gujarat High Court informing of the July 18 Full Court decision to withdraw Yatin Oza’s Senior Advocate designation.

3        Set aside the report of the committee constituted by the Gujarat High Court Chief Justice.