YATIN NARENDRA OZAversusKHEMCHAND RAJARAM KOSHTI & ORS.

                            [2016] 4 S.C.R. 756


A                       Y ATIN NARENDRA OZA
                                      v.
              KHEMCHAND RAJARAM KOSHTI & ORS.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 841 of2016)
B                            AUGUST 31, 2016
               (DIPAK MISRA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.)
          Contempt of Courts Act, I97 I - Petition pertaining to
    unwarranted speeches rendered, letters written or statements given
    by appellant - High Court issued notice under the Act and directed
c
    him not to indulge in any kind of scandalous activity or hold official
    meeting and pass resolution - On appeal, held - Appellant tendered
    unconditional apology and undertook not to speak on the subject
    in issue in public except in court proceedings - Apology offered by
    appellant treated to be sincere - Accordingly he is exonerated.
D
          Advocates: Relationship between Bar and Bench - Necessitous
    conduct expected to sustain the majesty of the institution - Discussed
     -Professional /Legal ethics.
         Disposing of the appeal, the Court
E         HELD: 1. The apology offered by the appellant and affidavits
    filed by him are treated to be sincere and accordingly he is
    exonerated. If the appellant speaks in the tenor he has spoken,
    that may tantamount to ex facie contempt of the Court. The
    appellant to constantly remind himself that the standing and dignity
    of the Court matter to the nation and also to the collective. (Paras
F   16,17) [762-C, E]
          C. Ramachandran Iyer v. Justice A.M Bhattacharjee
          (1995) 5 sec 457: 1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 319 ; R.K.
          Garg v. State of H.P. (1981) 3 SCC 166: 1981 (3)
          SCR 536 ; Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
G         In re (1995) 3 SCC 619 : 1995 (3) SCR 450; O.P.
          Sharma and Ors. v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana
          (2011) 6 SCC 86: 2011 (6) SCR 301; Arun Kumar
          Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2013) 14 SCC 127:
          2013 (6) SCR 263 - referred to.
H
                                  756
      Y ATIN NARENDRA OZA v. KHEMCHAND RAJARAM                               757
                     KOSHTI & ORS.

                               Case Law Reference                            A
        1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 319             referred to    Para2
        1981 (3)           SCR 536          referred to    Para 10
        1995 ( 3) SCR 450                   referred to    Para 11
        2011 (6)           SCR 301          referred to    Para 12            B

        2013 (6)           SCR 263          referred to    Para 13
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 3491 of2016.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2016 of the High Com1           c
of Gujarat, atAhmedabad, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 10077 of
2016.
     Kapil Sibal, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mihir Thakore, R. Oza,
Sr. Advs., Apurva Kapadia, Purvish J. Malkan, Abhinav Ramkrishna,
Advs. for the Appellant.                                                     D
     Harin P. Rawal, K. K. Venugopal, Sr. Advs., Mohit Paul, Vikas
Arora, Ms. Diksha Jhingan, Asim Pandya, Percy Kavina, Mahesh
Agrawal, Ankur Saigal, Shashank Manish, E. C. Agrawala, Ms.
Hemantika Wahi, Advs. for the Respondents.
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                            E
        DIPAK MISRA, J. I. 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. I 0077of2016 whereby
it has, after referring to assertions made in the petition and reproducing
                                                                              F
certain paragraphs from C. Ravicltmulran Iyer v. Justice A.M.
Bliattacliarjee directed as follows:-
                   1
                       ,



        "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    G
        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)."
1
    (1995) s sec 457                                                          H
758             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 4 S.C.R.



A            3. When the matter was listed on 29.4.2016, this Court after hearing
       leamed counsel for the parties, as the respondent no. I, who had initiated
       the contempt of court, had entered caveat, passed the following order:-
             "Having heard learned counsel forthe petitioner, we are, as advised
             at present, not inclined to vary or modify the order passed by the
B            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
             abeyancetill 12.05.2016."
             4. To appreciate the controversy, narration of facts, in brief, is
c      necessary. As has been stated hereinbefore, the High Court entertained
       the application for contempt of comt being moved by the I st respondent,
       a member of the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association, the 3rd
       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
D      High Court, primafacie, 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
 E     submissions put forth on behalf of the 1st 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 perthe verdict of this Court in C.
 F     Raviclta11drm1 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 appearing for the 1st respondent
       had drawn our attention to certain letters written by the appellant. At
 G     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
 1-1   unequivocally expressed his regret and rendered unconditional apology.
     Y ATIN NARENDRA OZA v. KHEMCHAND RAJARAM                                 759
             KOSHTI & ORS. [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

He has explicitly and unambiguously stated that on certain occasions, he      A
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          B
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 for the I st
respondent, per contra, would vehemently 5 contend that the apology
offered by the appellant is neither genuine nor honest and, therefore, this
                                                                               c
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 th is kind of activity
but despite the same he has chosen to remain resolute in making such           D
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 the 3rd
respondent herein, Gujarat High Court Advocates Association has
canvassed that the unconditional apology of the appellant is absolutely        E
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.
                                                                               F
      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 necessitous conduct expected to sustain the majesty
of the institution.
                                                                               G
      10. In R.K. Garg v. State ofH.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 justice to the people. Many
 '(1981)3 sec 166                                                              H
760            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 4 S.C.R.


A           members of the Bench are drawn from the Bar and their past
            association 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,
            com1esy must begin with the Judge. A discourteous Judge is like
            an ill-tuned instrument in the setting of a courtroom. But members
B
            of the Bar will do well to remember that such flagrant violations
            of professional ethics and cultured conduct will only result in the
            ultimate destruction of a system without which no democracy
            can survive."
           11. Strt'ssing on the honour of the profession and the exemplary
c     conduct expected, the Court in Ministry of Information and
      Broadcasting, In re' observed thus:-
            "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. Although the entry to the profession can be had by
D           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 individual but the administration of
E           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."

 F          12. In the beginning of this decade, the Court in O.P. Sharma
      and otllers 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
 G          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.
      '(1995)3 SCC619
 H    • (2011i 6 sec 86
    YATIN NARENDRA OZA v. KHEMCHAND RAJARAM                                    761
           KOSHTI & ORS. [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

      Any violation of the principles of professional ethics by an advocate     A
      is unfortunate and unacceptable. Ignoring even a minor violation/
      misconduct militates against the fundamental foundation of the
      public justice system."
      13. In Arun Kumar Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesll 5 , a two-
Judge Bench while emphasizing on the role of the Bar and the Bench              B
and how they are treated as inextricable twins of the judicial system and
the conduct shown by the appellant therein, had stated:-
      "ln 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
      attracted keeping in view the infirmities of man's nature and the
                                                                                c
      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 errant behaviour by any counsel or
      litigant. Even a Judge is required to maintain the decorum and            D
      dignity of the court."
       14. We have referred to t11e 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    E
delivery system which is extremely dear to a civilized society.
      IS. Coming to the case at hand, after hearing learned S (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        F
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      G
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 affidavitthat had already been filed on 25.08.2016,
 '<20l3J 14 sec 121                                                             H
762             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 4 S.C.R.



A     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.
B            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
c     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, ifthe 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
D     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
      himselfthatthe standing and dignity of the Court matter to 11 the nation
E     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.


      Ankit Gyan                                                Appeal disposed of.
 F