Conviction for Criminal Contempt Suspended Under Article 142 Subject to Periodic Review of Future Conduct

The Appellant, then President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association (GHCAA) and a Senior Advocate, held a live Facebook press conference on June 5, 2020.

During the broadcast, he alleged corruption and "forum shopping" in the High Court Registry, branding the institution a "gambling den" that favored billionaires and "traitors" over the poor.

The Gujarat High Court took suo motu cognizance under Article 215 and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, finding him guilty of criminal contempt on October 6, 2020.

Simultaneously, the Full Bench of the High Court recalled his "Senior Advocate" designation on July 21, 2020.

The Appellant challenged his conviction, citing emotional distress due to COVID-19-related grievances of junior lawyers and tendering multiple unconditional apologies.

1. Whether the Appellant's scurrilous remarks against the High Court and its Registry constituted "criminal contempt" under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. Whether an unconditional apology, in light of a history of "slap, say sorry, and forget" conduct, must be accepted by the Court.

3. Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its plenary powers under Article 142 to provide a final opportunity for reform despite a valid conviction.

Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines criminal contempt as publication that scandalizes or lowers the authority of any court.

Article 215 of the Constitution of India, establishing High Courts as courts of record with the inherent power to punish for contempt.

Section 12 of the 1971 Act regarding the acceptance of apologies, noting that an apology must be bona fide and the court is not bound to accept it if it is a mere "paper apology".

Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of U.P., which mandates automatic disqualification from practice for two years upon a contempt conviction.

Yatin Narendra Oza v. Khemchand Rajaram Koshti (2016), which previously cautioned the Appellant on judicial dignity.

The Court affirmed the High Court's finding that the term "gambling den" was intemperate and lowered the institution's authority, rejecting the defense that the Registry is distinct from the "Court".

While acknowledging the "mitigating circumstances" of the Appellant’s role as Bar President during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court held that even severe emotional distress did not justify scandalizing the judiciary.

Citing the "parental" temperament the Bench should adopt toward the Bar, the Court balanced the need for accountability with the principle of mercy.

Rather than setting aside the merits of the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court utilized Article 142 to find a middle path: acknowledging the conviction as a "final straw" while suspending its penal consequences to allow for "forgiveness with vigil".

The Appellant is exempted from the statutory disqualifications under Section 24-A of the Advocates Act.

The Court directed the Full Court of the High Court to conduct a periodic review of the Appellant's behavior every two years; any further infraction allows the High Court to move the Supreme Court to activate the suspended sentence.

Regarding the 2024 "forum shopping" allegation, the High Court was requested to take a fresh, independent decision on the Appellant's Senior designation.

The appeal was disposed of with a final warning that this was "the last chance, after the last chance".