The Supreme Court set aside a contempt conviction against a Navi Mumbai woman who called judges part of a “dog mafia,” stressing that contempt power protects the institution, not individual judges. The Court said mercy must guide decisions when genuine remorse is shown.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday made it clear that the power to punish for contempt of court is not meant to protect judges from criticism but to maintain the dignity of the judicial institution.
The observation was made in the case of Vineeta Srinandan vs. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, where the Court set aside a Bombay High Court order that had convicted a Navi Mumbai resident for criminal contempt.
ALSO READ: Mumbai Woman Calls Judges ‘Dog Mafia’, Gets 1-Week Jail for Contempt
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted that courts must show restraint and focus on preserving the respect of the system, not shielding individual judges.
The Court said,
“the power to punish necessarily 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… this power is not a personal armour for Judges, nor a sword to silence criticism.”
It added that
“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.”
The matter arose from a circular issued in January 2025 by Vineeta Srinandan, who was then the Cultural Director of Seawoods Estates Limited in Navi Mumbai. The circular was linked to a dispute in the housing society regarding the feeding of stray dogs.
In the message circulated to over 1,500 residents, Srinandan criticised dog feeders and made comments suggesting that they were part of a “dog mafia”.
She further claimed that such individuals were protected by the judicial system and that these “trained professionals” had a “strong presence in the judicial system.”
The Bombay High Court took suo motu cognisance of the circular and held that it scandalised the court and attempted to damage the reputation of the judiciary. The High Court found her guilty of criminal contempt, saying her apology was not genuine but appeared “borrowed rather than genuine.”
Srinandan was sentenced to one week’s simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2,000.
She then approached the Supreme Court to challenge the conviction. While the Supreme Court agreed that the circular fulfilled the legal requirements of criminal contempt, it said the High Court was wrong in rejecting her apology, especially when she expressed regret immediately.
The Court explained that under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, an apology should not be rejected simply because it is conditional or has qualifications, as long as it is made sincerely.
The Bench emphasised that the law tries to balance the respect due to the judiciary with the fact that people can make mistakes.
It stated that
“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.”
The Supreme Court also clarified that earlier cases cited by the Bombay High Court, including DC Saxena v Chief Justice of India and Rajendra Sail v MP High Court Bar Association, were not comparable to this matter because those cases involved very serious allegations and the individuals involved had refused to apologise.
The Bench observed that the purpose of contempt law is not only to punish but also to allow forgiveness when genuine repentance is shown.
The judges noted that
“The statutory scheme is clear, once repentance is demonstrated, the Court may act with magnanimity.”
Considering this, the Supreme Court decided that justice would be better served by cancelling the punishment.
It therefore set aside the Bombay High Court’s April 2025 order convicting Srinandan and remitted the sentence.
Srinandan was represented by Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu along with Advocates Yash S Vijay, Pranjal Agarwal, Dixita Gohil, Anisha Mahajan and Shikhar Aggarwal.
The Bombay High Court was represented by advocate Prashant Shrikant Kenjale.
Case Title:
Vineeta Srinandan vs. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Click Here to Read More Reports On Dog Mafia
