Case: YATIN NARENDRA OZA Vs. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

has been labelled as a repeated behaviour of what would amount to slap, say sorry, and forget. Since the statements issued by the petitioner caused huge damage to the Court and could not be repaired by the apology, the same was not accepted. The statements were not made in the heat of the moment, but were planned by way of a live telecast. Each of the members of the Full Court individually felt that the apology was only a paper apology. The privilege of the gown was withdrawn. 5. We may note at the threshold that the High Court has objected to the maintainability of a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The designation as a Senior Counsel in terms of the Rules framed under the Advocates Act, 1961 does not create a right much less a fundamental right in favour of the petitioner. Thus, it was submitted that what has been withdrawn is a privilege and not a right. The very nature of conferment of a designation is submitted to be a privilege (Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 ) and, thus, the withdrawal of the privilege by those who conferred it would not make it justiciable at all especially since such withdrawal is not a bar to be granted such privilege again. It is thus submitted that in the absence of a right, no writ of mandamus can be issued. 6. It has been emphasised on behalf of the High Court that the conferment of this privilege weighs not only on the existence of certain legal acumen but a much higher standard of behaviour and if such presupposition disappears, the authority is empowered to withdraw the privilege. What has been urged is that re-conferment of this right on the petitioner through a writ of mandamus would be de hors the exercise of powers under statutory rules. 7. Dr. Singhvi and other counsel, coming to the aid of their colleague of long standing, did not seek to justify the conduct of the petitioner. The direction of the argument has been that this Court should show compassion. The withdrawal of designation is not limited by time and is disproportionately harsh as the petitioner is not being given an opportunity to redeem himself. The filing of an application afresh for designation after the specified time bar is stated to not really be a redemption. 8. Dr. Singhvi sought to explain that the petitioner had bona fidely raised issues within the institution regarding non-circulation of matters, based on a large number of complaints received from the members of the Bar by him by reason of his holding the position of the President. The petitioner endeavoured to resolve the grievances within the system by writing several letters and making many representations which were in a sober and restrained language. The grievance was stated to be not one against the Judges, but against the manner of working of the Registry. On account of his helplessness and not being able to provide solace to the lives of the suffering advocates, the petitioner even resigned as the President of the Bar but on account of the unanimous opinion of the Bar, withdrew the same. The Press Conference was stated to be the culmination of his inability to resolve the disputes, as a last resort. The petitioner got emotionally overwhelmed during the Press Conference and made utterances of which he has been very apologetic from the very beginning. It was submitted that the emotional utterances were not preplanned, and therefore, parts of what he said are sought to be relied upon to substantiate that he was not making allegations against the Bench as a whole. 9. In the proceedings before the Full Court also it was submitted that at the threshold an apology had been submitted. However, the Full Court had opined that even if the apology would have been given at the first instance, still the apology would not have been accepted as it was not submitted at the threshold. The consequence of the decision of the Full Court is stated to be that the contempt proceedings became fait accompli. 10. Dr. Singhvi really sought to canvas on the proportionality of the Full Courts decision, as did the petitioner who intermittently addressed the Court; even volunteering that he at times loses his balance while performing the role as the President of the Bar and that he is willing to give an undertaking that he will never contest elections to the Bar Association. We informed him that was a decision of his own to take and we certainly would not like to inhibit his right to contest the elections as a member of the Bar. It was his say and that of his counsel that the petitioner has learnt his lesson and, thus, an opportunity must be given to him for redemption. The withdrawal of designation was stated to be the most severe punishment for any Senior Advocate and in that behalf, the observations of Chief Justice Dickson of the Canadian Supreme Court in a historic case of R. v. Oakes were referred to in Modern Dental College v. State of M.P. (2016) 7 SCC 353 as under: The more severe the deleterious effects of a measure, the more important the objective must be if the measure is to be reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 11. In the conspectus of the aforesaid we really find little ground to interfere with the impugned order before us. We respect the views of the High Court but still endeavour to give one more and last chance to the petitioner. In a way this can really be done by recourse to Article 142 of the Constitution of India as there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the High Court that there is no real infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The question is in what manner this last chance should be given?

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. In the conspectus of the aforesaid we really find little ground to interfere with the impugned order before us. We respect the views of the High Court but still endeavour to give one more and last chance to the petitioner. In a way this can really be done by recourse to Article 142 of the Constitution of India as there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the High Court that there is no real infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner.