Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal against the conviction of appellant, President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association and a designated senior advocate, for criminal contempt. The contempt proceedings arose from a live press conference held by Oza on 5 June 2020, telecast on Facebook, where he made serious allegations against the Gujarat High Court and its Registry, including corruption, forum shopping, and preferential treatment for wealthy litigants. He referred to the High Court as a 'gambling den' and claimed that the institution catered only to the rich and powerful. The High Court took suo motu cognizance under Article 215 of the Constitution and Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and issued a contempt notice. Oza filed an affidavit-in-reply tendering an unconditional apology, stating that his remarks were an emotional outburst due to complaints from junior advocates about listing difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the High Court rejected the apology as belated and insincere, convicting him of criminal contempt and sentencing him to imprisonment until the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 2000. Additionally, the Full Court withdrew his senior designation under Rule 26 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 2018, citing conduct unbecoming a Senior Advocate. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that the allegations scandalised and lowered the authority of the court, and that the apology was not genuine. The Court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary and the need for the Bar and Bench to work harmoniously.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt - Scandalising the Court - Section 2(c)(i) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The Appellant, President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association, made public allegations of corruption, forum shopping, and preferential treatment against the High Court Registry and judges, calling the institution a 'gambling den'. The High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings. The Supreme Court held that such scurrilous remarks scandalise and lower the authority of the court, constituting criminal contempt. (Paras 1-6) B) Contempt of Court - Apology - Unconditional Apology - Section 12 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The Appellant tendered an unconditional apology in his reply. The High Court rejected it as a 'paper apology' given belatedly and without genuine contrition. The Supreme Court upheld this view, noting that the apology was a calculated strategy to avoid punishment. (Paras 4-5, 31-32) C) Senior Advocate - Withdrawal of Designation - Conduct Unbecoming - Rule 26 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 2018 - Pending contempt proceedings, the Full Court withdrew the Appellant's senior designation for conduct unbecoming a Senior Advocate. The Supreme Court did not interfere with this decision, as it was based on an independent assessment of the Appellant's conduct. (Paras 5, 26-34)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the Appellant for criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, based on his press conference allegations against the High Court and its Registry, is valid.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the Appellant for criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the sentence imposed by the Gujarat High Court. The Court also upheld the withdrawal of his senior designation.
Law Points
- Criminal contempt
- scandalising the court
- unconditional apology
- withdrawal of senior designation
- Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971
- Article 215 of Constitution of India
