The Supreme Court docket in the present day remitted a lady’s 1-week easy imprisonment sentence for contempt of Court docket over her “canine mafia” comment towards the Supreme Court docket and the Excessive Court docket/their judges.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta famous that the petitioner-woman confirmed real regret from the very starting and put aside the Excessive Court docket’s order to the extent of the sentence.
The Court docket additionally held that the Excessive Court docket’s reliance on Rajendra Sail v. M. P. Excessive Court docket Bar Affiliation & Ors. and D.C. Saxena (Dr.) v. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India was misplaced.
The bench delivered the decision on the petitioner’s problem to a Bombay HighCourt order which convicted her for felony contempt and sentenced her as above. In Could this yr, the Court docket had stayed the impugned order.
To recap, in reference to a dispute pending between a Navi Mumbai-based society and canine feeders, the petitioner(a resident of the society) circulated a letter making “objectionable and derogatory” feedback towards the Supreme Court docket and Excessive Court docket/their judges.
The letter was circulated after the Excessive Court docket handed an order towards the society for disallowing the house-help of one of many residents to enter, as she fed stray canines within the premises. It acknowledged that there was a “canine mafia” working within the nation with an inventory of “Excessive Court docket and Supreme Court docket judges having views much like the canine feeders”.
Whereas saying the order holding the petitioner responsible of contempt, the Excessive Court docket stated, “We is not going to settle for the crocodile tears and the routine sorry mantra, normally made by the contemnors in such instances.” It ordered that the petitioner bear 1 week easy imprisonment and pay a tremendous of Rs. 2,000.
Within the order, it was opined that the petitioner’s act quantity to felony contempt of Court docket because it clearly scandalized and lowered the authority of the Court docket.
“it’s not anticipated from an informed particular person like that of the contemnor to make such feedback in regard to the Courts and the Judges of the upper Courts just like the Supreme Court docket and the Excessive Courts. It can’t be believed that when the contemnor undertook such contumacious writing, she was not acutely aware or may very well be stated to be unaware of the implications of such writing. Actually, proper from the ‘title of the article’ aside from its different contents as underscored by us, reveals a devoted try, a nicely considered design calculated to carry the Court docket and the Judges to a disrepute and supposed to tarnish the judicial system in order to intervene with the due course of justice and administration of legislation by the courts with impunity,” the Excessive Court docket famous.
Additional, it opined that the letter printed by the petitioner couldn’t be categorized as “truthful criticism” of both the Courts or any orders handed by them. Actually, her feedback, the bench emphasised, had been “nicely calculated, designed, and articulated to ascribe motives in direction of the Court docket and the Judges. They’re supposed to create a sense of mistrust and prejudice within the minds of the general public towards the Courts, Judges and the administration of justice”.
Whereas refusing to just accept the apology tendered by the petitioner, the Excessive Court docket acknowledged, “We don’t settle for any apology, which doesn’t present any contrition or any real regret. Such apology in our opinion, is merely a weapon in protection with an impression that the contemnor can get away by such recitals. Thus, such conduct of the contemnor can’t escape punishment, being a consequence of her extreme contumacious acts of creating scurrilous and scandalising remarks towards the Courts and the Judges.”
Look: Sr Adv Dama Seshadri Naidu; AoR Yash S Vijay; Advocates Pranjal Agarwal, Dixita Gohil, Kms Sivani, Anisha Mahajan, Deepak Sharma, and Shikhar Aggarwal
Case Title: VINEETA SRINANDAN Versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ON ITS OWN MOTION, Crl.A. No. 2267/2025
Leave a Reply