The Supreme Court has set aside the Bombay High Court’s order sentencing Appellant, former Cultural Director of Seawoods Estates Ltd., to one week’s simple imprisonment for criminal contempt. The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that in the exercise of contempt jurisdiction, “Courts must remain conscious that this power is not a personal armour for Judges, nor a sword to silence criticism.”
The case stemmed from a circular issued by the Appellant on January 29, 2025, alleging that a “dog feeders’ mafia” operated within the judicial system and accusing judges of ignoring evidence of stray dog attacks. The Bombay High Court initiated suo motu contempt and sentenced her to a week’s simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2000, which led to the present appeal u/s 19(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Supreme Court agreed that the circular was contemptuous but held that the High Court erred in refusing to accept her unconditional apology, which was offered at the very first opportunity. The Court emphasised that Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act obliges courts to consider remission when a contemnor expresses genuine remorse, and found no material suggesting that her apology was insincere. It also noted that the High Court had relied on precedents factually distinct from the present case.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the sentence, observing that the power to punish for contempt necessarily includes the power to forgive, and that the ends of justice would have been met by accepting her apology.
Appearances
Appellant- Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Ms. Dixita Gohil, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Yash S. Vijay, AOR Mr. Shikhar Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Anisha Mahajan, Adv.
Respondent- Mr. Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, AOR
