The Supreme Court on Wednesday, December 10 set aside the April 23 order of the Bombay High Court that had found Navi Mumbai resident Vineeta Srinandan guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced her to a week’s simple imprisonment for issuing a circular suggesting the presence of a “dog mafia” within the judiciary.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted that Vineeta had expressed “unconditional remorse at the earliest stage” and tendered an “unqualified apology,” which the High Court had wrongly rejected.
In its judgement, the apex court reiterated that contempt powers are not meant to function as a shield for judges. “Courts must remain conscious that this power is not a personal armour for Judges, nor a sword to silence criticism… Mercy, therefore, 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 SC emphasised that the power to punish inherently includes the power to forgive, particularly when a contemnor demonstrates genuine repentance. It held that the High Court had failed to exercise its contempt jurisdiction with the required circumspection.
The case arose from a January 29, 2025 circular issued by Vineeta, then cultural director of Seawoods Estates Ltd., during the pendency of a writ petition concerning the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, which require resident associations to create designated feeding spaces for stray animals.
The High Court had taken suo motu cognisance after an intervenor placed the circular on record, arguing that it alleged a widespread dog-feeder “mafia” with links to judges and accused courts of ignoring evidence of stray dog attacks.
The High Court held that the circular contained “serious insinuations” against the judiciary and rejected Vineeta’s apology as insincere. It imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 and sentenced her to one week’s simple imprisonment, concluding that her apology “did not reflect contrition or genuine remorse”.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed. The bench said an apology cannot be rejected merely because it appears qualified, so long as it is made bona fide. It held, “The statutory scheme is clear: once repentance is demonstrated, the Court may act with magnanimity.”
The SC also found that the High Court had misapplied earlier precedents, noting that previous cases involved more serious allegations or situations where the contemnor had refused to apologise.
“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,” the bench concluded, allowing the appeal and disposing of all pending applications.