Supreme Court grants last chance to Senior Advocate after gown withdrawal: Yatin Narendra Oza vs. High Court of Gujarat (28 October 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 28 October 2021

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a High Court withdraw the designation of a Senior Advocate for misconduct? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a Senior Advocate whose designation was withdrawn by the High Court of Gujarat. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was justified in withdrawing the ‘privilege’ of the Senior Advocate designation due to the advocate’s conduct and whether the Supreme Court should intervene. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The case involves Mr. Yatin Narendra Oza, a senior advocate and former President of the Bar Association of the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court withdrew his designation as a Senior Advocate due to his conduct. The petitioner had a history of conflict with the High Court. In 2006, he made utterances against two judges, which led to contempt proceedings. Although those remarks were expunged by the Supreme Court, the petitioner’s conduct remained a concern. On 21 March 2020, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India, making serious allegations against a senior judge of the High Court. He then circulated this letter in the Bar Association’s WhatsApp group on 8 June 2020. Three days prior, on 5 June 2020, he called the High Court a “Gamblers Den” in a Press Conference, further escalating the issue. These actions led to dual proceedings against him: one for contempt and another to withdraw his Senior Advocate designation.

The petitioner submitted an apology in both proceedings. However, the Full Court of the High Court found his apology insincere, noting that it came 41 days after the initial incident, during which he attempted to justify his actions. The High Court viewed the apology as a repeated pattern of misconduct, where the petitioner would make offensive statements, apologize, and then repeat the behavior. Consequently, the High Court withdrew his designation as a Senior Advocate.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initiated two proceedings against the petitioner: one for contempt of court and another to withdraw his designation as a Senior Advocate. The Full Court of the High Court found the petitioner’s apology insincere and noted that it was submitted after 41 days of attempting to justify his actions. The High Court concluded that the petitioner’s statements had caused significant damage to the institution and could not be remedied by the apology. The Full Court unanimously decided to withdraw the privilege of his Senior Advocate designation.

Legal Framework

The judgment references the Advocates Act, 1961, under which the rules for designating Senior Advocates are framed. The Court notes that the designation of a Senior Counsel is a privilege, not a right. The Court also refers to Article 32 of the Constitution of India, under which the petitioner filed the writ petition. Article 32 provides the right to constitutional remedies, allowing individuals to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

Arguments

Arguments of the Petitioner:

• The petitioner, through his counsel, did not justify his conduct but pleaded for compassion from the Supreme Court.
• It was argued that the withdrawal of the Senior Advocate designation was a disproportionately harsh punishment, as it was not limited by time and did not provide an opportunity for the petitioner to redeem himself.
• The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner had raised genuine issues within the institution regarding the non-circulation of matters, based on complaints from the members of the Bar.
• The petitioner’s counsel stated that the petitioner had tried to resolve the issues through letters and representations but felt helpless, which led to the Press Conference.
• The emotional utterances during the Press Conference were not pre-planned.
• The petitioner submitted an apology at the threshold of the proceedings.
• The petitioner is willing to give an undertaking that he will never contest elections to the Bar Association.

Arguments of the Respondent (High Court of Gujarat):

• The High Court argued that the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable as the designation of Senior Counsel is a privilege, not a fundamental right.
• The High Court emphasized that the conferment of the Senior Advocate designation requires not only legal acumen but also a high standard of behavior.
• The High Court argued that if the presupposition of high standards of behavior disappears, the authority is empowered to withdraw the privilege.
• The High Court stated that the petitioner’s apology was not genuine as it was submitted after 41 days and after attempting to justify his actions.
• The High Court argued that the statements made by the petitioner caused huge damage to the Court and could not be repaired by the apology.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in withdrawing the designation of the petitioner as a Senior Advocate.
2. Whether the Supreme Court should intervene in the decision of the High Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

• Yatin Narendra Oza v. Khemchand Rajaram Koshti and Ors. [(2016) 15 SCC 236] – This case involved the petitioner’s earlier contempt proceedings where his apology was accepted. The Supreme Court referred to this case to highlight the petitioner’s history of misconduct and apologies.
• Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India [(2017) 9 SCC 766] – This case was cited by the High Court to emphasize that the designation of a Senior Counsel is a privilege, not a right. The Supreme Court acknowledged this position.
• Modern Dental College v. State of M.P. [(2016) 7 SCC 353] – The petitioner’s counsel referred to this case, quoting Chief Justice Dickson of the Canadian Supreme Court in ‘R. v. Oakes’, to argue that the punishment should be proportional to the offense.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Advocates Act, 1961: The rules for designating Senior Advocates are framed under this Act. The court noted that the designation is a privilege, not a right.
• Article 32 of the Constitution of India: This article provides the right to constitutional remedies, under which the petitioner filed the writ petition. The court noted that there was no infringement of a fundamental right.
• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: The Court used this article to give one last chance to the petitioner.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Yatin Narendra Oza v. Khemchand Rajaram Koshti and Ors. [(2016) 15 SCC 236]: The Court used this case to highlight the petitioner’s past conduct and pattern of apologies.
• Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India [(2017) 9 SCC 766]: The Court agreed with the High Court’s view that the designation of Senior Counsel is a privilege, not a right.
• Modern Dental College v. State of M.P. [(2016) 7 SCC 353]: The Court acknowledged the principle of proportionality but did not find the High Court’s decision disproportionate in the given circumstances.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a mix of factors. While acknowledging the High Court’s perspective on the petitioner’s misconduct and the nature of the Senior Advocate designation as a privilege, the Court also considered the long-standing career of the petitioner and the pleas for compassion. The Court sought to balance these factors by giving the petitioner a final opportunity to redeem himself.

The Court’s decision was also influenced by the need to uphold the dignity and integrity of the judiciary while also providing a chance for reform. The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s future as a Senior Advocate would depend on his conduct over the next two years.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered various factors before arriving at its decision. The Court acknowledged the High Court’s authority to withdraw the designation based on the petitioner’s conduct. However, it also considered the petitioner’s plea for compassion and the argument that he should be given an opportunity to redeem himself. The Court used its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to give the petitioner one last chance, temporarily restoring his designation for two years, subject to his good conduct. The Court emphasized that the final decision on whether to continue or permanently restore the designation lies with the High Court.

The Court did not find any alternative interpretations that would justify a complete reversal of the High Court’s decision. Instead, it chose a middle path, balancing the need to maintain the integrity of the judiciary with the possibility of the petitioner’s reform. The Court’s decision was based on the specific facts of the case and the need to ensure that the petitioner understands the importance of maintaining the standards expected of a Senior Advocate.

The Court’s decision is clear: the petitioner’s designation is temporarily restored for two years, during which his conduct will be closely monitored by the High Court. The final decision on whether to continue or permanently restore the designation will depend on his behavior. The Court’s reasoning is based on the need to balance the principles of justice, fairness, and the integrity of the judiciary.

“We are of the view that the ends of justice would be served by seeking to temporarily restore the designation of the petitioner for a period of two years from 1.1.2022.”

“It will be for the High Court to take a final call whether his behaviour is acceptable in which case the High Court can decide to continue with his designation temporarily or restore it permanently.”

“All we are seeking to do is to give him a chance by providing a window of two years to show that he truly means what he has assured us.”

Key Takeaways

• The designation of a Senior Advocate is a privilege, not a right, and can be withdrawn for misconduct.
• Apologies for misconduct must be genuine and timely to be accepted by the court.
• The Supreme Court can use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure justice and provide opportunities for reform.
• The conduct of Senior Advocates is subject to high standards, and any deviation can lead to consequences.
• The High Court has the authority to monitor the conduct of Senior Advocates and make final decisions on their designation.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the designation of the petitioner as a Senior Advocate be temporarily restored for a period of two years, starting from 1 January 2022. The High Court will monitor the petitioner’s conduct during this period and make a final decision on whether to continue or permanently restore his designation. The Court also noted that any misconduct during this period would result in the withdrawal of the temporary restoration of the designation.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that while the designation of a Senior Advocate is a privilege that can be withdrawn for misconduct, the Supreme Court can use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to provide a final opportunity for reform. This case does not change any previous position of law but reinforces the importance of maintaining high standards of conduct for Senior Advocates.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court, while upholding the High Court’s authority to withdraw the Senior Advocate designation, granted a final chance to the petitioner, Mr. Yatin Narendra Oza. The Court temporarily restored his designation for two years, subject to his good conduct. The High Court will monitor his conduct and make the final decision on his designation. This judgment highlights the importance of maintaining high standards of conduct for Senior Advocates and the Court’s role in ensuring justice and providing opportunities for reform.