The Supreme Court on Wednesday (Dec 10, 2025) observed that the power to punish criminal contempt is not a “personal armour” for a judge to suppress criticism, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (Dec 10, 2025) set aside the order of the Bombay High Court that found a Navi Mumbai woman guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced her to a week’s imprisonment by a magistrate judge. “dog mafia”.
Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that the woman had expressed unconditional remorse at the earliest stage and apologized unreservedly for her conduct.
“In the exercise of contempt jurisdiction, courts must be aware that this power is not a personal weapon for the judge, nor a sword to silence criticism. After all, it requires the courage to admit remorse for one’s wrongdoing and the even greater virtue of extending forgiveness to the erring. Mercy, therefore, must remain an integral part of the judge’s conscience, and his conscience must be extended where his conscience is extended.” that,” the judgment reads.
What is Contempt of Court in India? | Explained
The judges further noted that a holistic reading of Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (the 1971 Act) makes it clear that the provision not only authorizes the imposition of punishment but also expressly preserves the court’s power to pardon it. This discretion, the Bench pointed out, continues even after a finding of guilt and award of punishment.
“The statutory scheme is thus clear, once repentance is shown, the court can act liberally. However, the apology must be bona fide and must satisfy the judicial conscience of the court, which is bound to exercise this discretion judiciously,” the Bench said.
Earlier, the High Court had taken suo motu cognizance of a circular issued in January by a woman, Vineeta Srinandan, cultural director of Mumbai’s Seawoods Estates Limited, observing that the remarks contained in it were intended to obstruct the administration of justice and disrupt the due process of law. The circular was issued while the Supreme Court was hearing a case related to the feeding of stray dogs in the Seawoods complex, in which residents challenged the validity of Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023. The rule mandates residents’ welfare associations and apartment owners’ associations to set up designated areas for feeding stray animals. The Seawoods complex is home to over 1,500 residents in Navi Mumbai.
Position: Contempt for the forces in the name of the people
The High Court ruled that the circular contained “serious insinuations” against High Court and Supreme Court judges and rejected Ms Srinandan’s claim that she was unaware of the implications of issuing such remarks. It also refused to accept her apology, finding that it did not show remorse or genuine remorse. As a result, the court fined her ₹2,000 and ordered her to be imprisoned for one week.
The Supreme Court rejected the approach taken by the High Court, noting that it had not exercised its contempt jurisdiction with due care, especially since Ms. Srinandan had expressed remorse and tendered an unconditional apology from the first day of her appearance in the suo motu proceedings.
He further noted that Section 12 of the 1971 Act makes it clear that an apology need not be refused merely because it is qualified or conditional if offered in good faith. The legal framework, he said, recognizes that once a convict shows sincere remorse, the court is empowered to accept it and possibly exonerate the convict or pardon the sentence imposed.
“In our opinion, in the absence of any material to indicate that the apology was lacking in good faith, the High Court should have considered the remission of sentence in accordance with law,” the Bench said, quashing the High Court’s order.
In its 21-page judgment, the High Court said that although Section 12 of the 1971 Act prescribes a punishment of up to 6 months or a fine of up to ₹2,000 or both for the offence, it gave Ms Srinandan a relatively shorter sentence. In our clear opinion, the contempor has taken every opportunity to justify the circumstances under which she issued such objectionable writing, while reciting the mantra of apology. We do not accept any apology that does not reflect regret or genuine remorse. Such an excuse, in our opinion, is only a defensive weapon advanced in the belief that the recusant can escape the consequences by justifying it,” the High Court said in its order.
Published – 10 Dec 2025 19:17 IST
