2025 Supreme(SC) 2024

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Vineeta Srinandan - Appellant
Versus
High Court Of Judicature At Bombay On Its Own Motion – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 Of 2025
Decided On : 10-12-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Contempt of Court – Once repentance is demonstrated, Court may act with magnanimity.
(2) Precedent – Ratio decidendi of a Judgment must be understood in context of its facts and issue decided therein – Only where factual matrix is materially similar can ratio in an earlier decision be applied.

Headnote:

(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 12 and 19(1)(b) – Contempt of Court – Conviction and sentence – Section 12 of Contempt Act contemplates not merely imposition of punishment but also power to remit the same – Once repentance is demonstrated, Court may act with magnanimity – However, apology must be bona fide and must satisfy judicial conscience of Court, which is required to exercise this discretion judiciously – While majesty of law must be preserved against attempts to malign the institution and those discharging judicial functions, provision also recognises human fallibility – Once contemnor expresses sincere remorse, even if apology is not unqualified in form, Court is competent to accept it and, where necessary, discharge contemnor or remit sentence imposed – Once appellant-contemnor had, from very first day of her appearance in suo motu proceedings, expressed remorse and tendered an unconditional apology, High Court was required to examine whether such apology satisfied statutory parameters under Section 12 of Contempt Act – In absence of any material suggesting that apology was lacking in bona fides, High Court ought to have considered remitting sentence in accordance with law – Impugned Judgment passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 8.3, 8.4, 9.5, 9.6, 10 and 11)

(B) Precedent – Ratio decidendi of a Judgment must be understood in context of its facts and issue decided therein – Only where factual matrix is materially similar can ratio in an earlier decision be applied – Where a decision turns upon its own facts or is guided by peculiarities of a particular case, it does not constitute ratio of Judgment – It is neither profitable nor permissible to rely upon isolated lines from a Judgment, for binding element lies in ratio decidendi and not in every observation contained therein – What is of essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from various observations made in Judgment. (Paras 9 and 9.1)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal is by appellant-contemnor under Section 19(1)(b) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 preferred against judgment dated 23rd April, 2025, passed by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Suo Motu Criminal Contempt Petition No. 2 of 2025, whereby appellant-contemnor was held guilty of committing offence of criminal contempt of court punishable under Section 12 of Contempt Act, sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.

The issue that arises for consideration is whether challenge preferred by appellant– contemnor to judgment of High Court is sustainable in law, and further, whether High Court was justified in declining to accept her apology and consequently refusing to remit the sentence imposed.

Findings of Court:

Considering that the appellant-contemnor has, from the very outset, expressed genuine remorse and repentance for issuing the contemptuous circular, we are satisfied that the ends of justice would be met by remitting the sentence imposed by the High Court.

Result : Appeal allowed.