[Contempt Hearing Against Yatin Oza] Gujarat HC Rejects Intervention Application Filed by A Lawyer, But Takes On Record Material Produced By Him [Read Order]
The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday deemed it appropriate to take notice of materials circulated by GHCAA President Yatin Oza on the WhatsApp group of the High Court advocates, as disclosed by Advocate Amit Panchal who sought intervention in the suo motu criminal contempt proceedings pending against Oza. While disallowing the applicant himself to be a party intervener, Justices Sonia...
The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday deemed it appropriate to take notice of materials circulated by GHCAA President Yatin Oza on the WhatsApp group of the High Court advocates, as disclosed by Advocate Amit Panchal who sought intervention in the suo motu criminal contempt proceedings pending against Oza.
While disallowing the applicant himself to be a party intervener, Justices Sonia Gokani and N. V. Anjaria took on record the material supplied by Panchal.
Panchal had brought on record a copy of the letter dated 21.03.2020 addressed by Oza on his letterhead in his individual capacity to the Chief Justice of India. It is further averred by the applicant that Oza circulated messages in the month of June, 2020 and two such messages of the WhatsApp group called High Court Advocates are annexed. "Although, there was no requirement for publicizing his telephonic calls to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India or to the Hon'ble Judges of the Collegium of the Apex Court, he resorted to the said modus operandi and utterance of the opponent no.2, according to the applicant is the contempt of this Court as the Court has already initiated suo motu contempt proceeding against the opponent no.2", recorded the division bench.
By way of the intervention application, Panchal sought to state that Oza has maligned this Court and there was no requirement nor any reason for circulating the letter in the month of June, 2020.
"This appears to have been done with a mala fide intent and to give a bad name to the judge concerned and to disrepute the High Court. He is trying to browbeat the judges and belittle the institution", observed the bench.
The bench noted that the applicant has fairly submitted that addressing a letter to the Chief Justice of India per-se may not amount to contempt, however, the intent of the said letter which was circulated in the WhatsApp group of Advocates with an intent of wide circulation before two days of issuance of notice of Contempt, makes it a contemptuous utterances.
The bench framed the following three aspects for its consideration:
1) Whether at the present stage of criminal contempt proceedings, any intervener can be permitted to step in, as the court is already seized of the matter of Criminal contempt, and
2) Whether the material sought to be placed before this court in this application can be permitted to be brought on the record presented before another court in PIL proceedings by any person in the ongoing contempt proceedings, and
3) Whether the material which is sought to be placed before this court is completely unconnected to the subject matter of contempt proceedings and therefore, deserves no indulgence? Appreciating several Supreme Court and other High Court authorities as regards the first question, the bench reflected that the common thread which runs through all the case laws is that the initiation of contempt is between the Court and contemner, the contempt of court is not a litigation of an adversarial nature and a party who brings to the notice of the court the contemptuous conduct, is only an informant or relator and not the litigant. It is between the court and contemner and the third party would have no locus.
On adverting to the facts on hand, even otherwise from the plethora of decisions, the court was of the firm opinion that the intervener, being a third party, cannot be permitted as the proceedings of criminal contempt initiated suo motu by this court are strictly between the Court and the contemner.
The bench continued to address the second and third questions as to whether the applicant should be permitted to place before the Court, the material which is forming part of another PIL which is pending before another bench of the High Court. The bench noted that being conscious of the fact that the petitioner has already moved a PIL and it is also true that he, at no stage, has stated before this court as to why he has approached this Court belatedly when he already was before the Court in PIL and was aware of the contempt proceedings which has been initiated by the Court. "From his material which he has placed before the first Court, it can also take cognizance of the matter and the matter is still pending for adjudication where the applicant requests the framing of the rules for the conduct of the advocates. He also has sought other prayers which concern conducting of the court by virtual hearing", observed the bench.
The bench concluded that, however, none of these circumstances would come in the way of this court in taking this material on record- "Any material which is authentic and is derived from any source which is not questionable, the court can make use of it without permitting anyone to implead itself as an intervener"
The bench expressed that none of the decisions nor the powers of this Court under Article 215 nor the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act preclude the Court from getting the material from any source which is legitimate.
"It is not to be forgotten that while initiating the suo moto contempt, this Court had already taken note of press conference called by the Opponent no.2 and his allegations and utterances. This court is in the midst of considering the aspect of genuineness of apology tendered before it in the proceeding of criminal contempt and at that stage when the material circulated which questions the conduct of one of the sitting judges and also alleges against the Court concerned if is brought before the court, it matters not whether the same is not of a very recent origin and two months old. The fact remains that before this court at no stage this material has been placed nor was it available on any such platform from where this court could have had access to the same. It being a material which is related, it is required to be taken on record", stated the bench.
The bench further said that this has come at the time when the contemnor has shown his remorse and tendered unconditional apology. Whether the same would have a bearing on the subject and whether the Court should regard this material at the time when he has already tendered his apology before the Apex Court and before this Court also, will be a separate matter to be considered for which availing an opportunity to him is a must.
"Thus, the submissions cannot be countenanced that because this material has been presented belatedly or because it is lying with another court in other proceeding, should not be permitted as the other court did not choose to act upon the said material which it could have. To reiterate, this court was not aware of this material since the same was circulated on the previous day in the group of High Court advocates therefore, to the notice of this court for the first time, the material is being brought at the time when the hearing of contempt proceedings on the aspect of apology is going on, any material which otherwise the Court finds, can help it to decide the matter pending before it, can surely be taken into consideration", declared the bench
The bench further noted that in the press conference convened on 5th June, Oza made certain specific utterances in the nature of allegations and remarks in respect of the functioning of High Court alleging corrupt practices. Accordingly, this court issued Suo Motu notice to the alleged contemner on the 9th June. The said order highlights the kind and nature of allegations leveled and the gist thereof. In response to sue Motu proceedings, the Opponent has filed his reply stating inter alia that his allegations and utterances in the press conference were directed against the functioning of the registry of the High Court and not against the Judges. It was claimed that they were in the nature of emotional outburst.
"Prima facie noticing the material produced in the present application, it is revealed from the circulation of material that Opponent No.2 has written a letter dated 21st March 2020 to Honourable the Chief Justice of India making serious allegations against one of the sitting judges of the High Court and had that stopped there, it is the right of the parties to approach the highest seat of this country ventilating the grievances in the nature of working and functioning. However, after the said press conference, the Opponent no.2 has even circulated the said letter dated 21st March 2020 together with the related materials in the WhatsApp group called High Court advocates' group on the 8th June 2020", noted the bench. Looking to the kind of allegations and utterances in the press conference which are the subject matter of Suo Motu contempt proceedings initiated by this Court, and the nature of the defence sought to be raised by Oza, the bench was of the view that this act and conduct of circulating the aforementioned letter sent by him to the Chief justice of India in the WhatsApp group of the High Court advocates and his tall claims therein, cannot be viewed in segregation. The said circulation was an act, successive to the press conference which Prima facie bears proximity in terms of time and connection with the subject matter of contempt proceedings.
"The nature of utterances and conduct on the part of the Opponent no. 2 seem to be in conjunction, on our prima facie reading of the material. What needs to be done of this material and whether in wake of the consideration of request of acceptance of his apology tendered to this court, particularly in wake of the directions of the Apex court, any use can be made at all at this stage of Suo Motu proceedings, are the questions which may not preclude this Court from taking it on record as its worth and usability are not the subject matter of this application and can be regarded at the time of hearing the Suo Motu proceeding", ruled the bench. Having chosen to consider at the prima facie juncture, the material received from the member of the Bar, "the genuineness of which is not questioned", the bench was also of the opinion that the same can be regarded by the court in the pending proceedings of Contempt, being connected materials, and for that, "even absence of consent of the Learned Advocate General would not deter the court" from taking it on record. 'Contempt not to be used to upkeep dignity of judges in individual capacity' The High Court, in its order, proceeded to make notable observations in context of its power of contempt.
"This Court is conscious that the Contempt of Court is a special jurisdiction which is to be exercised sparingly with caution. It is only when the majesty and dignity of the courts is adversely affected, this jurisdiction needs to be springs into action", observed the bench.
The bench expressed the opinion that there is no lis nor any adjudication between the parties and it is not to be used to upkeep the dignity of the Judges in their individual capacities but, when the entire administration of the justice is targeted, it becomes imperative for the Court to intervene.
The bench further stressed that while any act which has a tendency of shaking the confidence of the public, cannot be permitted and therefore, this Court can exercise its inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution, the court also cannot be oblivious of the need of healthy criticism to have a check and balance in the system and the right to freedom of speech and to profess the profession which are zealously guarded by the Constitution, that and all these aspects are going to be regarded while proceeding with the Suo Motu contempt proceedings.
[Read Order]