Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 841 OF 2016
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 3491 OF 2016)
Yatin Narendra Oza … Appellant
VERSUS
Khemchand Rajaram Koshti & Ors. … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal, by special leave, assails the order
dated 27.4.2016 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in CRMP (Contempt of
Court) No. 10077 of 2016 whereby it has, after referring to
assertions made in the petition and reproducing certain
paragraphs from C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M.
Signature Not Verified
1
Bhattacharjee , directed as follows:-
Digitally signed by
GULSHAN KUMAR
ARORA
Date: 2016.09.03
12:23:58 IST
Reason:
1
2
“9. Let there be a notice under the Contempt of
Courts Act returnable on 2.5.2016 to
respondents. In the mean time 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 Supreme Court in case of C.
Ravichandran Iyer ( supra).”
3. When the matter was listed on 29.4.2016, this Court
after hearing learned counsel for the parties, as the
respondent no.1, who had initiated the contempt of court,
had entered caveat, passed the following order:-
“Having heard 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 12.05.2016. However,
we direct that the contempt proceedings before
the High Court shall remain in abeyance till
12.05.2016.”
4. To appreciate the controversy, narration of facts, in
brief, is necessary. As has been stated hereinbefore, the
High Court entertained the application for contempt of court
st
being moved by the 1 respondent, a member of the Gujarat
rd
High Court Advocates Association, the 3 respondent
(1995) 5 SCC 457
3
herein. The assertions that were made in the contempt
petition basically pertain to unwarranted speeches
rendered, letters written or the statements given by the
appellant. The High Court, prima facie , formed the view that
the language employed in the letter did tantamount to
contempt. Be it 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
st
on behalf of the 1 respondent, who was the petitioner
before the High Court, it issued notice under the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity, “the Act”) to the
respondent/contemnor therein and directed him not to
indulge in any kind of scandalous activity or holding official
meeting and passing resolution on the subject matter as
could be said to be contemptuous as per the verdict of this
Court in C. Ravichandran Iyer (supra).
5. Be it noted, after the interim order was passed by this
Court, the matter was adjourned on certain occasions and
on the last occasion, Mr. Raval, learned senior counsel
4
st
appearing for the 1 respondent had drawn our attention to
certain letters written by the appellant. At that stage, this
Court noted that it may, in the ultimate eventuality, issue
notice to the Bar Council of India.
6. With the passage of time, as is reflectible, monumental
wisdom has dawned on the appellant and he has filed an
affidavit on 25.08.2016. In various paragraphs of the said
affidavit, as is manifest, he has unequivocally expressed his
regret and rendered unconditional apology. He has explicitly
and unambiguously stated that on certain occasions, he
might have spoken with emotion but his respect and regard
for the institution is extremely high. It is also admitted by
him that he was under the impression that he was making
a genuine effort to protect the interest of the institution.
7. It is submitted by Mr. Sibal and Dr. Singhvi, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellant that when the
appellant , a senior counsel practising in the High Court of
Gujarat, has realized the mistake and tendered
unconditional apology, the controversy should be given a
decent burial. Mr. Raval, learned senior counsel appearing
st
for the 1 respondent, per contra , would vehemently
5
contend that the apology offered by the appellant is neither
genuine nor honest and, therefore, this Court should not
accept the same and the matter should be allowed to
proceed as per the provisions contained in the Act.
Elaborating the said submission, Mr. Raval would further
urge that on an earlier occasion the appellant had given an
undertaking not to indulge in this kind of activity but
despite the same he has chosen to remain resolute in
making such statements. The conduct of the appellant,
Mr. Raval submits, with all the keenness at his command,
does not call for exoneration.
8. Mr. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for
rd
the 3 respondent herein, Gujarat High Court Advocates
Association has canvassed that the unconditional apology of
the appellant is absolutely honest and indubitably sincere
and, therefore, this Court, in its magnanimity, put the
controversy to rest. Learned senior counsel would also
submit that the Association shall not proceed with the
resolution which was the subject matter of the Contempt
Petition before the High Court and has travelled to this
Court, in any manner whatsoever.
6
9. Before we express our opinion on the unconditional
apology offered by the appellant and the regret expressed,
we would like to refer to certain authorities with regard to
relationship between the Bar and the Bench and the neces-
sitous conduct expected to sustain the majesty of the insti-
tution.
2
10. In R.K. Garg v. State of H.P. while observing about
the legal profession, this Court observed:-
“
9. … the Bar and the Bench are an integral part
of the same mechanism which administers jus-
tice to the people. Many members of the Bench
are drawn from the Bar and their past associa-
tion is a source of inspiration and pride to them.
It ought to be a matter of equal pride to the Bar.
It is unquestionably true that courtesy breeds
courtesy and just as charity has to begin at
home, courtesy must begin with the Judge. A dis-
courteous Judge is like an ill-tuned instrument
in the setting of a courtroom. But members of the
Bar will do well to remember that such flagrant
violations of professional ethics and cultured con-
duct will only result in the ultimate destruction of
a system without which no democracy can sur-
vive.”
11. Stressing on the honour of the profession and the ex-
emplary conduct expected, the Court in Ministry of Infor-
3
mation and Broadcasting, In re observed thus:-
2
(1981) 3 SCC 166
3
(1995) 3 SCC 619
7
“20. The legal profession is a solemn and serious
occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who
belong to it are its honourable members. Al-
though the entry to the profession can be had by
acquiring merely the qualification of technical
competence, the honour as a professional has to
be maintained by its members by their exemplary
conduct both in and outside the court. The legal
profession is different from other professions in
that what the lawyers do, affects not only an indi-
vidual but the administration of justice which is
the foundation of the civilised society. Both as a
leading member of the intelligentsia of the society
and as a responsible citizen, the lawyer has to
conduct himself as a model for others both in his
professional and in his private and public life.
The society has a right to expect of him such
ideal behaviour.”
12. In the beginning of this decade, the Court in O.P.
4
Sharma and others v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana
was constrained to say:-
“… An advocate is expected to act with utmost
sincerity and respect. In all professional
functions, an advocate should be diligent and his
conduct should also be diligent and should
conform to the requirements of the law by which
an advocate plays a vital role in the preservation
of society and justice system. An advocate is
under an obligation to uphold the rule of law and
ensure that the public justice system is enabled
to function at its full potential. Any violation of
the principles of professional ethics by an
advocate is unfortunate and unacceptable.
Ignoring even a minor violation/misconduct
militates against the fundamental foundation of
the public justice system.”
4
(2011) 6 SCC 86
8
5
13. In Arun Kumar Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh , a
two-Judge Bench while emphasizing on the role of the Bar
and the Bench and how they are treated as inextricable
twins of the judicial system and the conduct shown by the
appellant therein, had stated:-
“In the case at hand, we are absolutely convinced
that apology or for that matter the unconditional
apology was neither prompt nor genuine. The
concept of mercy and compassion is ordinarily at-
tracted keeping in view the infirmities of man’s
nature and the fragile conduct but in a court of
law a counsel cannot always take shelter under
the canopy of mercy, for the law has to reign
supreme. The sanctity of law which is sustained
through dignity of courts cannot be marred by er-
rant behaviour by any counsel or litigant. Even a
Judge is required to maintain the decorum and
dignity of the court.”
14. We have referred to the above authorities only to
emphasise the necessity of dignified behavior, obedience to
the norms of professional ethics and sustenance of decorum
of the institution, for all combined stabilize the nobility of
the profession and ensure the faith in the justice delivery
system which is extremely dear to a civilized society.
15. Coming to the case at hand, after hearing learned
5
(2013) 14 SCC 127
9
counsel for the parties, we enquired from Mr. Sibal and Dr.
Singhvi, learned senior counsel whether the appellant is
present in Court and we got the answer in the affirmative.
Be it stated, Mr. Raval, apart from being critical of the
irresponsible proclivity of the appellant, has also expressed
his anguish that he has been indulging in similar activities
and giving interviews to the electronic media. In essence,
the submission of Mr. Raval is that habits are difficult to be
comatosed. Regard being had to the said submissions, we
required the appellant, Yatin Narendra Oza, who is present
in Court, to file a further affidavit and for the said purpose
we passed over the matter directing that it would be taken
up at 12.30 p.m. When the matter was taken up at the
stipulated time, the second affidavit was brought on record.
The affidavit that has been filed today in addition to the
affidavit that had already been filed on 25.08.2016,
reiterates that the appellant 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 shall neither speak nor
give any kind of interview to either electronic or print media
10
on the subject in question.
16. Taking note of the affidavits filed on the previous
occasion and that of today, we are disposed to think that
the appellant is repentant and the repentance is sincere;
and the regret, honest. The tenor of the affidavits, as we
perceive, is unmistakably relatable to expression of regret
and unconditional apology. Centuries ago, Demosthenes,
the famous Greek thinker had said 'articulation has to be
sincere and honest'. We treat the apology offered by
Mr. Yatin Narendra Oza, who is present and filed the
affidavits to be sincere and accordingly we exonerate him.
Needless to say, if the appellant will speak in the tenor he
has spoken, that may tantamount to ex facie contempt of
the Court.
17. We possibly would have proceeded to state 'all is well
that ends well', but we refrain from saying so as the
unconditional apology remains on record and we have taken
cognizance of the repentance as we think the regret, the
apology and repentance shall see the appellant in a different
incarnation. We expect the appellant to constantly remind
himself that the standing and dignity of the Court matter to
11
the nation and also to the collective.
18. The appeal is accordingly disposed of and
consequently the proceeding for contempt initiated by the
High Court stands closed.
...........................,J.
(Dipak Misra)
...........................,J.
(C. Nagappan)
New Delhi;
August 31, 2016.
SLP (C) No.3491/2016
ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3491/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/04/2016
in CRLMA No. 10077/2016 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad)
YATIN NARENDRA OZA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
KHEMCHAND RAJARAM KOSHTI AND ORS Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for bringing on record additional documents and
exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief and office report)
Date : 31/08/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kabil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mihir Thakore, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R. Oza, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Apurva Kapadia, Adv.
Mr. Purvish j. Malkan, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Harin P. Rawal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR
Mr. Vikas Arora, Adv.
M. Diksha Jhingan, Adv.
Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Asim Pandya, Adv.
Mr. Percy Kavina, Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Manish, Adv.
Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
SLP (C) No.3491/2016
13
The appeal is disposed of and consequently the proceeding for
contempt initiated by the High Court stands closed in terms of the
signed reportable judgment.
(Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)