LexVINEETA SRINANDAN versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ON ITS OWN MOTION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 426 : 2025 INSC 1408 Vineeta Srinandan v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay on Its Own Motion (Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025) 10 December 2025 [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the challenge preferred by the appellant-contemnor to the judgment of the High Court is sustainable in law; whether the High Court was justified in declining to accept her apology and consequently refusing to remit the sentence imposed. Headnotes† Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s.12 – Scheme of – One Seawoods Estates Ltd. challenged the vires of r.20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 before the High Court – Intervention application filed therein that the appellant- contemnor, a former Director, Cultural thereof had issued a circular as regards the stray dog menace inter alia stating “The entire country has a stray dog menace, and most of the urban residential societies..are struggling to fight this dog feeder’s mafia….there is a big Dog mafia operating in the country, who has a list of High Court and Supreme Court judges having views similar to the dog feeders.…” – High Court in Suo Motu Criminal Contempt Petition held the appellant-contemnor guilty of committing the offence of criminal contempt of court punishable u/s.12, Contempt Act and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for one week and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- – Challenge to: Held: Though, the contemptuous circular does satisfy the essential ingredients of criminal contempt, the reasoning adopted by the High Court in invoking s.12 to impose punishment upon the appellant-contemnor not concurred with – The statutory scheme recognises that once a contemnor expresses sincere remorse, even * Author [2025] 12 S.C.R. 427 Vineeta Srinandan v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its Own Motion if the apology is not unqualified in form, the Court is competent to accept it and, where necessary, discharge the contemnor or remit the sentence imposed – On facts, High Court failed to exercise its contempt jurisdiction with due circumspection – Once the appellant contemnor had, from the very first day of her appearance in the suo motu proceedings, expressed remorse and tendered an unconditional apology, the High Court was required to examine whether such apology satisfied the statutory parameters u/s.12 – In the absence of any material suggesting that the apology was lacking in bona fides, the High Court ought to have considered remitting the sentence in accordance with law - Impugned judgment set aside – Sentence imposed, remitted. [Paras 8, 9.5-11] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s.12 – Interpretation – Scheme of. [Paras 8.2-8.4, 9.5] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Power under – Exercise of: Held: Power to punish 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 – In exercise of contempt jurisdiction, Courts must remain conscious that this power is not a personal armour for Judges, nor a sword to silence criticism – 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. [Para 1] Case Law Cited Rajendra Sail v. M.P. High Court Bar Association [2005] 3 SCR 816 : (2005) 6 SCC 109; Roshan Lal Ahuja, In re [1992] Supp. 3 SCR 257 : (1993) Supp. 4 SCC 446; DC Saxena v. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India [1996] Supp. 3 SCR 677 : (1996) 5 SCC 216; Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1969] 2 SCR 779 : AIR 1971 SC 221 – distinguished. Royal Medical Trust v. Union of India [2017] 10 SCR 390 : (2017) 16 SCC 605 – referred to. List of Acts Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023. 428 [2025] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports List of Keywords Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Dog mafia; Dog feeders; Stray dog menace; Suo Motu Criminal Contempt proceedings; Criminal contempt of court; Contemptuous circular; Apology not accepted; Sentence imposed remitted; Contemnor; Sincere remorse; Unconditional apology. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 23.04.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in SMCRCP No. 2 of 2025 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant(s): Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv., Ms. Dixita Gohil, Pra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.