In a significant ruling touching upon the relationship between the Bar and the Bench, the Supreme Court has closed criminal contempt proceedings against senior advocate and former Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association President Yatin Narendra Oza, while strongly disapproving of his remarks against the Gujarat High Court made during the COVID-19 period.
The bench observed that Oza’s statements were “unwarranted” and capable of damaging public confidence in the judiciary, but also took note of his repeated apologies, the professional consequences he had already suffered, and the passage of time.
Background of the Case
The controversy began in June 2020, when Oza addressed a live press conference during the pandemic and accused the Gujarat High Court Registry of favouring influential litigants. During the interaction, he described the High Court as a “gambling den” and alleged that wealthy litigants received urgent listings while ordinary lawyers struggled.
The Gujarat High Court took suo motu criminal contempt action against him under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The High Court observed that the remarks were “scandalous” and tended to lower the dignity of the institution.
At the same time, the Full Court of the Gujarat High Court also initiated separate proceedings to withdraw Oza’s designation as a Senior Advocate. In July 2020, the Full Court unanimously decided to recall his senior designation, saying his conduct was “not befitting a Senior Advocate.”
Oza’s Defence Before the Court
Oza consistently maintained that his remarks were made while raising concerns voiced by junior advocates facing severe financial hardship during the COVID-19 lockdown. He said he was emotionally overwhelmed and admitted that the phrase “gambling den” should never have been used.
He repeatedly tendered unconditional apologies before both the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court.
The judgment records one such apology where Oza stated:
“I sincerely tender my unqualified apology.”
Senior advocates appearing for him argued that he had already suffered professionally after losing his senior designation for over a year and that the prolonged litigation had deeply affected his career and reputation.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that Oza’s language against the High Court was indefensible. At the same time, the bench also examined the extraordinary circumstances prevailing during the first wave of COVID-19 and the pressure being faced by lawyers, especially juniors struggling financially.
The Court noted that Oza had remained apologetic throughout the proceedings and had suffered the loss of his senior designation for nearly one and a half years.
Referring to an earlier order passed in connected proceedings, the bench recalled that it had already given Oza “one more and last chance” to reform his conduct.
The Court also stressed that contempt proceedings and withdrawal of senior designation are legally distinct actions and can continue independently even if they arise from the same incident.
Bringing the long-running dispute to an end, the Supreme Court accepted Oza’s apology and decided to close the contempt proceedings.
The Court held that while the remarks against the judiciary were serious and unacceptable, the overall circumstances - including his remorse, repeated apologies, and the punishment already suffered through loss of designation - justified giving the matter a quietus.
The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Yatin Narendra Oza v. Suo Motu, High Court of Gujarat and Another
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 2020
Judge: Justice J.K. Maheshwari
Decision Date: May 11, 2026
