''He had been fighting for a legitimate cause, but veered into a wrong path under emotional distress.'' Supreme Court while deciding Yatin Oza plea

?Case: Yatin Narendra Oza v. Suo Motu, High Court of Gujarat and Another

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 2020

Date of Judgment: 2026

Justice J K Maheshwari.

Justice Atul S Chandurkar.

Brief Summary

The Supreme Court considered the validity of the conviction of Senior Advocate Yatin Narendra Oza for criminal contempt arising from a press conference held during the COVID-19 pandemic, wherein he described the Gujarat High Court as a “gambling den” and alleged favouritism in listing of cases. The Gujarat High Court had convicted him for criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentenced him till the rising of the Court with a fine of ?2,000.

The Supreme Court noted that the remarks were highly improper and scandalous, undermining public confidence in the judiciary. However, the Court also considered mitigating circumstances, including the extraordinary stress during the COVID-19 period, the grievances of junior advocates regarding listing of matters, the appellant’s repeated unconditional apologies, and the fact that he had already suffered deprivation of his Senior Advocate designation for a substantial period.

The Court observed that while contempt proceedings and withdrawal of Senior Advocate designation are distinct, the consequences already suffered by the appellant could not be ignored. The judgment extensively discussed the dignity of courts, the responsibilities of senior advocates, the relationship between the Bar and the Bench, and the importance of preserving public confidence in judicial institutions.

CONCLUSION OF THE COURT.

65 In the interest of comprehension and easy understanding, we are summarizing our conclusion as follows:

(i) The reasons assigned in the impugned order by the High Court do not warrant any interference by this Court, yet, extending a final act of forgiveness, we are inclined to exercise our plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to suspend / keep in abeyance the conviction as well as sentence of the Appellant as a consequence of this judgment, indefinitely.

(ii) In the meanwhile, no disqualification or disadvantage arising out of the Appellant’s conviction under the 1971 Act shall attract, including but not limited to disqualification under Section 24-A of the Advocates Act, 1961.

(iii) The Full Court of the High Court shall undertake periodic review of the Appellant’s conduct at an interval of every two years in light of the undertaking of the Appellant quoted in paragraph 50 of this judgment. If the Appellant is found to have carried out any further act of similar nature, the High Court shall be at liberty to file an application in the instant disposed of appeal seeking to give immediate effect to the Appellant’s conviction and sentence as directed by the High Court in the present proceedings.

(iv) Lastly, we request the High Court to take a fresh decision in respect of the incident of 2024 and the question of withdrawal of senior designation, in light of the present judgment, completely uninfluenced by the Appellant’s conviction for contempt by the High Court in the impugned judgment. Needless to say, the decision of retaining / withdrawing the Appellant’s senior gown can also be made a subject of the periodic review every two years which we have directed above.

66. We hope and expect that the Appellant’s conduct remains above board and that he realizes that this final act of forgiveness is in consideration of his undertaking before this Court and he must therefore continue to abide by it in true sense and spirit.