Yatin Narendra Oza vs Khemchand Rajaram Koshti

Dipak Misra, J.—Heard Mr. Kapil Sibal and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 1 and Mr. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent 3, Gujarat High Court Advocates Association.

To appreciate the controversy, the factual narration, in brief, is necessary. The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad entertained a criminal miscellaneous application for contempt of court forming the subject-matter of Contempt Petition No. 10077 of 2016 being moved by the first respondent, a member of the Advocates Association. The assertions that were made in the contempt petition basically pertain to unwarranted speeches of the statements given by the petitioner. The High Court, Khemchand Rajaram Koshti v. Yatin Narendra Oza, 2016 SCC Online Guj. 2280, reproduced the paragraphs from the application for contempt and, prima facie, formed the view that the language employed in the letter was inappropriate. Be is stated, on the date the High Court took up the matter, the Bar Association was going to discuss and pass a resolution which, the High Court felt, was contemptuous in nature. Regard being had to the facts enumerated in the petition and the submissions put forth on behalf of the 1st respondent, who was the petitioner before the High Court, it issued notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1912 to the respondent/contemnor and directed the respondent not to indulge in any kind of scandalous activity or holding official meeting and passing resolution on the subject-matter as it is expressly prohibited and could be said to be contemptuous as per decision of the Supreme Court in C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, (1995) 6 SCC 457 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 943.

The said order was called in question before this Court by the contemnor/ petitioner, Yatin Narendra Oza.

On 29-4-2016, Yatin Narendra Oza v. Khemchand Rajaram Koshti, SLP (cri) No. 3491 of 2016, Order dated 29.04.2016 (SC), this Court passed the following order:

"The petitioner is grieved by the interim order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Khemchand Rajaram Koshti v. Yatin Narendra Oza, 2016 SCC Online Guj. 2280. It is necessary to reproduce the interim direction issued by the High Court as under:

Let there be a notice under the Contempt of Courts Act returnable on 2-5-2016 to the respondents. In the meantime and till the returnable date, the respondents are restrained from indulging in any scandalous activity or holding official meeting and passing resolution on the subject-matter as it is expressly prohibited and could be said to be contemptuous as per decision of the Supreme Court in C. Ravichandran Iyer.''

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are, as advised at present, not inclined to vary or modify the order passed by the High Court and, accordingly, we direct that the said order shall remain in force till 12-5-2016. However, we direct that the contempt proceedings before the High Court shall remain in abeyance till 12-5-2016."

Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on certain occasions and on the last occasion, Mr. Raval, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent has drawn our attention to certain letters written by the petitioner. At that stage, this Court noted that in the ultimate eventuality, it may issue notice to the Bar Council of India.

As time rolled by, it appears strong wisdom has dawned on the petitioner and he has filed an affidavit on 25-8-2016. In various paragraphs of the said affidavit, the petitioner has unequivocally expressed his regret and rendered unconditional apology. He has also stated on certain occasions that he might have spoken with certain emotions but his respect for the institution is extremely high and he was under an impression that he was making an effort to protect the interest of the institution. The tenor of the affidavit, as we perceive, is relatable to regret and unconditional apology.

Mr. Raval, learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the petitioner, on earlier occasions, had given undertaking not to conduct in such a manner but despite the same he has remained embedded to his habit.

The said submission is controverted by Mr. Sibal and Dr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel. At this juncture, we must note with profit what has been urged by Mr. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, the Advocates Association. It is his submission that the petitioner is honest and sincere in rendering his unconditional apology. He fairly states that they will not proceed with the resolution which is the subject-matter of the contempt petition and which has travelled to this Court in the present special leave petition.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we enquired from Mr. Sibal and Dr Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel, whether the petitioner in present in Court and their answer was in the affirmative. Be it stated, Mr. Raval was absolutely critical of the proclivity exposed by the petitioner as he has been indulging and giving interviews to the electronic media. Regard being had to the same, we wanted the petitioner, Yatin Narendra Oza, who is present in Court to file an affidavit. The affidavit that has been filed today in addition to the affidavit that has already been filed on 25-8-2016 reiterates that he tenders unconditional apology and undertakes that he shall not speak on the subject in issue in public except in court proceedings. On further hearing, it has been clarified that he will not speak to the print media nor give any kind of interview or speak in the electronic media on the subject.

Regard being had to the affidavit filed on the previous occasion and today we are disposed to think that the petitioner is repentant and repentance is sincere and the regret is honest.

Centuries ago, the famous speaker of Greece Demosthenes had said "articulation has to be sincere and honest". We treat the apology submitted by Mr. Yatin Narendra Oza, who is present and filed the affidavit to be articulately sincere and accordingly we exonerate him. Needless to say, if the petitioner will speak in the tenor he has spoken, that may tantamount to ex facie contempt of the Court.

We possibly would have proceeded to state "all�s well that ends well" to borrow a phrase from John Barrowman, but we refrain from so doing as it had ended with an apology.

The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.