Contempt power not a judge’s sword to silence criticism: Supreme Court relief to woman for "dog mafia" comment

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the power to punish for contempt is not meant to shield judges from criticism but to preserve the dignity of the institution [Vineeta Srinandan vs. High Court of Judicature at Bombay].

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made the observation while setting aside a Bombay High Court order that had convicted a Navi Mumbai resident for criminal contempt over a circular referring to judges as part of a “dog mafia.”

The Supreme Court today said that courts must temper punishment with mercy where the contemnor demonstrates genuine remorse and mercy must remain an integral part of judicial conscience.

“The power to punish necessarily carries within it the concomitant power to forgive, where the individual before the Court demonstrates genuine remorse and repentance for the act that has brought him to this position… this power is not a personal armour for Judges, nor a sword to silence criticism,” the Bench noted.

The case stemmed from a January 2025 circular issued by one Vineeta Srinandan, then Cultural Director of Seawoods Estates Limited (a residential complex in Navi Mumbai), amid an ongoing dispute over the feeding of stray dogs.

In the circular, Srinandan accused the judiciary of protecting dog feeders, describing them as part of a “dog mafia.”

In the circular, she wrote that urban housing societies were struggling against “trained professionals” among dog feeders who had a “strong presence in the judicial system.”

After it was circulated among more than 1,500 residents, the Bombay High Court took suo motu cognisance. It held Srinandan guilty of criminal contempt, observing that the circular scandalised the court and was issued to tarnish the image of the judiciary.

The High Court sentenced her to one week’s simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000 after finding her apology insincere and perfunctory. It said her remorse appeared “borrowed rather than genuine.”

Srinandan then approached the Supreme Court seeking to overturn her conviction.

The Supreme Court, while agreeing that Srinandan’s circular satisfied the ingredients of criminal contempt, held that the High Court erred in refusing to accept her apology despite her immediate expression of regret.

The Court explained that under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, an apology must not be rejected merely because it is conditional or qualified if it is made bona fide. It emphasised that the law itself strikes a balance between preserving judicial dignity and recognising human fallibility.

The Bench observed that courts must apply their contempt powers with restraint and compassion.

“Mercy must remain an integral part of the judicial conscience, to be extended where the contemnor sincerely acknowledges his lapse and seeks to atone for it,” the Court said.

The judges also clarified that precedents like DC Saxena v Chief Justice of India and Rajendra Sail v MP High Court Bar Association, which the Bombay High Court relied upon, were distinguishable as those cases involved far graver allegations and refusals to apologise.

The ends of justice would be served by remitting the sentence, the Court said while underscoring that punishment under contempt law is not the only tool available, courts also possess the power to forgive when genuine repentance is shown.

“The statutory scheme is clear, once repentance is demonstrated, the Court may act with magnanimity,” the Court said, as it set aside the Bombay High Court’s April 2025 order convicting Srinandan and remitted the sentence.

Srinandan was represented by Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu along with Advocates Yash S Vijay, Pranjal Agarwal, Dixita Gohil, Anisha Mahajan and Shikhar Aggarwal.

Bombay High Court was represented by advocate Prashant Shrikant Kenjale.

[Read Judgment]