SC extends ‘final act of forgiveness’ to Senior Advocate Yatin Oza

The Supreme Court of India suspended Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association president Yatin Oza’s contempt conviction, calling it a “final act of forgiveness.” The court ordered periodic reviews of his conduct while warning against any future misconduct toward the judiciary

New Delhi: Extending a “final act of forgiveness”, the Supreme Court on Monday suspended an April 2024 order of the Gujarat High Court convicting Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association president Yatin Oza and sentencing him till the rising of the court for making scandalous remarks against the state judiciary.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and A S Chandurkar, however, directed that the full court of the high court shall undertake a periodic review of the appellant’s conduct at an interval of every two years in the light of an undertaking submitted by him expressing regret and apology over his behaviour. The matter is related to Oza allegedly accusing the presiding judge of “forum shopping” during the hearing of a writ petition.

---

Oza is not new to controversy. On an earlier occasion, the Gujarat High Court had initiated contempt of court proceedings against him for calling the high court “a gambling den” and had stripped him of his “senior advocate” status in 2020.

However, in October 2021, the Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to restore Oza’s gown for a two-year probationary period starting January 1, 2022, calling it his “one more and last chance”.

Under Article 142, the Supreme Court may pass such a decree or order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. Oza was elected as the GHCAA president for the 19th time on December 20, 2025.

In the judgment pronounced today (Monday), the apex court again invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and kept in abeyance the conviction as well as sentence of Oza. “The reasons assigned in the impugned order by the high court do not warrant any interference by this court. Yet, extending a final act of forgiveness, we are inclined to exercise our power under Article 142 of the Constitution to suspend/ keep in abeyance the conviction as well as sentence of the appellant as a consequence of this judgment indefinitely.

“In the meanwhile, no disqualification or disadvantage arising out of the Appellant’s conviction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, shall attract, including but not limited to disqualification under Section 24-A of the Advocates Act, 1961,” the bench said.

It directed that the full court of the high court shall undertake a periodic review of the appellant’s conduct at an interval of every two years in the light of the undertaking submitted by him. The apex court said if Oza is found to have carried out any further act of a similar nature, the High Court shall be at liberty to file an application in the instant disposed of appeal seeking to give immediate effect to his conviction and sentence as directed by the High Court in the present proceedings.

“We request the High Court to take a fresh decision in respect of the incident of 2024 and the question of withdrawal of senior designation, in light of the present judgment, completely uninfluenced by the appellant’s conviction for contempt by the High Court in the impugned judgment.

“Needless to say, the decision of retaining/withdrawing the appellant’s senior gown can also be made a subject of the periodic review every two years,” it said. Observing that courts are the foundational pillar of our judiciary, the top court said that while the judges, advocates, registry staff, supporting staff and thousands of other employees are all merely temporary tenants of these hallowed halls of justice, the institution itself is immortal, it will long outlive all of us.

“Courts are an edifice built to endure long after our transient contribution has concluded and the legacy, majesty and supremacy of the Courts must inevitably outlast us all. These very courts act as the respite for litigants to seek enforcement of their rights, for the common man to seek justice.

“We all, therefore, as citizens of India, collectively owe a duty to the institution to keep the justice delivery system in the highest regard and to ensure that its credibility is not brought down,” the bench said.

On April 9, 2024, during the hearing of a writ petition, Oza allegedly accused the presiding judge of “forum shopping”. The full court, after reviewing a video clip of the proceedings, noted that Oza appeared in the court on behalf of a respondent without a briefing counsel or a formal power of appearance.

The full court’s April 15, 2024, decision stated that Oza’s behaviour was “unbecoming of a senior advocate” and that his remarks were intended to “browbeat the court”. The high court had also imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 on Oza and said that in case of default, he would have to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.