The Supreme Court stayed the operation of a Bombay High Court order that found a woman guilty of criminal contempt for distributing a circular which allegedly cast aspersions on members of the judiciary. The case stemmed from remarks made in the context of a housing society dispute, wherein the High Court's decision was challenged on the grounds of overreach and violation of free speech. The apex court, while issuing notice to the State, observed that the matter warranted deeper examination before any penal action could be executed.
The controversy arose from a legal dispute between a housing society, Seawoods Estates Limited in Navi Mumbai, and individuals who were engaged in feeding stray dogs within the premises. Amidst the ongoing litigation, the society had reportedly denied access to a domestic help who fed the stray animals, leading the Bombay High Court to intervene and issue directions against such denial.
Subsequently, Vineeta Srinandan, who was serving as the cultural head of the housing society, circulated a notice on January 29 to more than 1,500 residents. The circular sharply criticised the judiciary, alleging that courts across the country were siding with stray dog feeders and forming part of what she termed a “dog mafia.” The communication included statements such as, “Now we are convinced that 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.”
Taking serious note of the content, the Bombay High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Srinandan. In its decision dated April 23, the High Court held that the language employed in the circular was not only derogatory but struck at the very heart of judicial integrity and public trust in the administration of justice. The Court observed that the expressions used were not casual or accidental but deliberate and calculated to create an atmosphere of distrust against the judiciary.
The Court further noted that a distinction must be maintained between fair criticism and scurrilous attacks that have the effect of lowering the authority of the court in the eyes of the public. It held that the circular scandalised the court and amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In strong terms, the judgment stated, “It cannot be believed that when the contemnor undertook such contumacious writing, she was not conscious or could be said to be unaware of the consequences.” It emphasised that imputing mala fides or bias to the judiciary, without any foundation, was impermissible and undermined the constitutional mandate of judicial independence.
On the issue of apology, the Court rejected Srinandan’s expression of regret, characterising it as devoid of genuine contrition. It observed that the apology appeared strategic and insincere, made with the intention to escape the consequences of contempt. The Bench remarked, “Such apology, in our opinion, is merely a weapon in defence with an impression that the contemnor can get away by such recitals.” Consequently, the High Court sentenced her to simple imprisonment for one week and imposed a fine of ₹2,000.
Aggrieved by the decision, Srinandan approached the Top Court seeking to set aside both the conviction and sentence. She argued that her comments were made in her personal capacity and did not intend to interfere with the administration of justice or diminish the authority of the courts.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice KV Viswanathan issued notice to the State and stayed the operation of the High Court’s order, thereby granting interim protection to the petitioner and restraining any coercive steps, including arrest.
With the Supreme Court’s stay order, the implementation of the High Court’s sentence stands suspended, pending final adjudication of the contempt petition.
Picture Source :
