The Supreme Court has upheld the criminal contempt conviction of senior advocate and former Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association (GHCAA) President Yatin Narendra Oza for making scandalous remarks against the Gujarat High Court during a press conference held amid the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. However, while affirming the findings of contempt, the Court took note of the apology tendered by the advocate, the punishment already undergone, and the professional consequences suffered by him over the years. 

The Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that the case reflected an unfortunate conflict between the Bar and the Bench, warning that such public attacks on the judiciary have the potential to erode public confidence in the justice delivery system. The Court noted that the appellant, while serving as President of the GHCAA and being a designated senior advocate, had levelled “unfounded, unwarranted and disreputable allegations” against the Gujarat High Court and its Registry in a televised press conference. 

The controversy arose from a live Facebook press conference conducted on June 5, 2020, during which allegations were made regarding preferential listing of cases, favouritism towards influential litigants, and alleged irregularities in the functioning of the Registry. During the press conference, the Gujarat High Court was allegedly referred to as a “gambling den,” and it was claimed that only billionaires and influential persons could obtain urgent circulation of matters while ordinary litigants and junior lawyers suffered delays. 

Taking suo motu cognizance under Article 215 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Gujarat High Court initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the senior advocate. The High Court found that the allegations not only targeted the Registry but indirectly scandalised the Judges and institution itself. According to the High Court, such statements were capable of undermining public faith in the judiciary and lowering the authority of the Court. 

During the proceedings, the advocate repeatedly tendered unconditional apologies before both the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court. He contended that the remarks were made in an emotional state while dealing with grievances of junior advocates during the severe disruptions caused by the COVID-19 lockdown. He argued that many advocates were facing financial distress, matters were allegedly not being listed, and frustration among members of the Bar had reached alarming levels. 

The Supreme Court noted that the advocate had produced resolutions and communications indicating that several junior lawyers had indeed raised complaints regarding listing difficulties during the pandemic period. The Court also took note of letters addressed to the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court highlighting grievances about non-circulation of matters and hardships being faced by advocates. 

However, the Court made it clear that grievances regarding judicial administration cannot justify scandalous attacks on constitutional institutions. The Bench emphasised that criticism of the judiciary is permissible in a democracy, but allegations which tend to lower the authority of courts or shake public confidence cross the line into criminal contempt. The Court observed that the expression “gambling den” used for the High Court was wholly inappropriate and indefensible. 

The judgment also referred to the advocate’s earlier brushes with contempt proceedings in 2006 and 2016, where apologies had previously been accepted by courts. The Gujarat High Court had earlier observed that the advocate appeared to follow a recurring pattern of “slap, say sorry and forget.” The High Court therefore refused to accept his apology in the present case, holding that repeated apologies after serious allegations could not always absolve contemptuous conduct. 

Apart from the contempt proceedings, the Full Court of the Gujarat High Court had also withdrawn the advocate’s designation as a Senior Advocate in July 2020 under the Gujarat High Court Rules governing senior designation. The Full Court held that publicly branding the High Court as a “gambling den” amounted to conduct unbecoming of a Senior Advocate and caused serious damage to the dignity and prestige of the institution. 

The Supreme Court, while earlier dealing with the challenge to withdrawal of senior designation, had temporarily restored the designation in 2021 for a period of two years under Article 142 of the Constitution, giving what it described as a “last chance” to the advocate to demonstrate “immaculate behaviour.” The Court had then stressed that a leader of the Bar carries greater responsibility to maintain restraint and dignity while voicing grievances. 

In the present judgment, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the advocate had already suffered substantial professional consequences by losing his senior designation for over one year and facing considerable reputational harm. The Court noted that he had shown remorse at multiple stages and repeatedly apologised for his conduct. 

At the same time, the Bench cautioned that members of the Bar, particularly designated senior advocates and office-bearers of Bar Associations, are expected to uphold the dignity of the institution and exercise restraint in public discourse. The Court reiterated that the independence and credibility of the judiciary constitute the foundation of the rule of law, and reckless allegations against courts can seriously damage public trust in the administration of justice

Case Details

Case Title: Yatin Narendra Oza Versus Suo Motu, High Court Of Gujarat and Another

Citation: JURISHOUR-1201-SC-2026

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 669 OF 2020

Date: 11/05/2026

Read More: Customs Seizes 25.25 Kg of Suspected MDMA Worth Rs. 50 Crore at Amritsar Airport