While reserving judgment, Justice JK Maheshwari said the Court would watch the videos related to the incident and examine the matter from the standpoint of the High Court as an institution. He said the central issue was whether the alleged harm affected an individual or the institution itself. He added that the Court must approach the matter differently once institutional damage enters the picture.
A Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar heard the matter. Senior Advocates KK Venugopal, Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Kapil Sibal, Arvind Datar and C Aryama Sundaram appeared for Oza. Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria represented the Gujarat High Court.
During the hearing, Sibal asked the Court to end the matter. He said Oza had already suffered enough because he had gone without a Senior Advocate’s gown for two years and five months. He added that Oza had already apologised and expressed regret for all past incidents. Sibal then asked why the matter should continue any longer.
Singhvi argued that Oza should get a chance to return to a normal professional life. He said the High Court had already made its point and should not continue its opposition indefinitely. He also questioned the latest objections the High Court filed in the case. Those objections referred to three issues: continuing arguments after dictation of an order, arguing in a matter where the Advocate-on-Record lacked a vakalatnama, and alleging “forum shopping” in a case.
Singhvi further submitted that the Bar and the Bench function within the same ecosystem, where things may happen in the heat of the moment. Even so, he said, the Court must keep any punishment for alleged contumacious conduct proportionate. He also argued that the present case reopened past issues that courts had already adjudicated and closed.
Venugopal also addressed the three objections raised by the High Court. He said the objections concerned “non-issues.” He added that Oza had already faced enough humiliation and had apologised repeatedly. Venugopal urged the Court to treat the apology as genuine and close the matter.
Hansaria opposed any plea for leniency. Appearing for the High Court, he said Oza had called the High Court a “gambling den.” He stressed that the dispute did not involve any personal grievance, but the honour of the institution. Referring to language used in a judgment, he argued that the Court must not allow a “slap, say sorry, and repeat” approach.
After Hansaria finished, Datar sought to place Oza’s remarks in context. He first pointed out that contempt proceedings arising from earlier incidents in 2006 and 2016 had ended after Oza tendered apologies, which the Court accepted.
On the 2006 incident, Datar said the concerned judge had issued more than 300 contempt notices to members of the Bar. He said the final straw came when the judge issued a contempt notice to a 70-year-old advocate because a phone reminder for heart medicine beeped during a hearing. According to Datar, Oza later tendered an apology and the matter ended there.
On the 2016 incident, Datar said the controversy arose from the non-implementation of the transfer order of one of two judges. He said that development had angered the Bar. The dispute later reached the Supreme Court, which accepted Oza’s apology and closed the matter.
Datar then turned to the 2020 press conference and Oza’s remarks. He said he was not trying to justify those remarks in any manner. He only wanted to explain the circumstances in which Oza made them. According to Datar, during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, the court listed some advocates’ matters the very next day, while it did not list others, even in bail matters. He said Oza, then President of the Bar, kept receiving complaints and messages. He also said two advocates had no work and had to leave practice and join Swiggy and Zomato as salespersons to survive. He submitted that Oza made the remarks in that emotionally charged atmosphere.
At that point, Justice Maheshwari asked whether even such serious circumstances could justify Oza’s statement. Datar answered in the negative. He added, however, that Oza had already apologised and suffered the consequences. Datar also said the words “gambling den” were inappropriate and warranted punishment. He then submitted that the real question before the Court concerned the extent of that punishment. The hearing ended with the Bench asking the parties to file written submissions or a brief note.
As for the background, the Gujarat High Court, in its October 2020 order, found Oza guilty of criminal contempt because of his public allegations. It imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000 and sentenced him till the rising of the Court. While holding him guilty, the High Court stressed the need to preserve the dignity and authority of the judiciary. It observed: “The only weapon of protecting itself from the onslaught to the institution is the long hand of contempt of court left in the armoury of judicial repository which, when needed, can reach any neck howsoever high or far away it may be.”
The High Court had also revoked Oza’s Senior Advocate designation in July 2020. Oza challenged that decision before the Supreme Court. In October 2021, the Supreme Court temporarily restored his designation for two years. The top court said the High Court could best watch and assess how he conducted himself as a senior counsel, without any further opportunity. It nevertheless held that the ends of justice would be served by restoring his designation for two years from January 1, 2022. Acting on that order, the Gujarat High Court restored his senior designation through a resolution passed on December 24, 2021. It extended that temporary restoration again in January this year.
In December 2025, Oza won election as President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association for the 18th time. The case is titled YATIN NARENDRA OZA Versus SUO MOTU, HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ANR., Crl.A. No. 669/2020.
Also read: CJI Surya Kant: India Must Reflect on Why It Lags as a Global Arbitration Hub
