Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. KULKARNI, ADVAIT M. SETHNA
High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its Own Motion – Appellant
Versus
Vineeta Srinandan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Kulkarni, J.
1. This suo motu criminal contempt proceeding is initiated against the contemnor for having issued written material of the nature, which scandalizes and lowers the dignity and authority of the Court, as also interferes in the administration of justice.
2. Briefly the facts are: In the proceedings of Writ Petition [Writ Petition No. 11652 of 2023 (Seawoods Estates Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.)] filed by the petitioner - Seawoods Limited (for short "Seawoods"), which inter alia challenges Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, in the context of stray dogs, an Intervention Application was moved by Ms. Leela Verma, being aggrieved by some serious actions of Seawoods affecting her basic human rights. In the proceedings of such application, she placed on record an affidavit pointing out objectionable materials issued by the contemnor, namely, a publication/circular dated 29 January 2025 circulated by the contemnor in the residential colony of the petitioner, having a large occupation of about 1500 families. By such circular, the contemnor has made serious insinuations against the High Court and the Supreme Court Judges. In such circular, the o
The publication by the contemnor constituted criminal contempt by scandalizing the court and interfering with the administration of justice, warranting punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Statements made in good faith about a judicial officer do not constitute criminal contempt, promoting open dialogue and criticism within the justice system.
Statements undermining the judiciary and attributing improper motives to judges constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, warranting strict action to uphold judicial authority.
Statements that are scurrilous, offensive, and malicious, and are intended to scandalize the court and lower its authority, amount to contempt of court and are not protected by the freedom of speech ....
Attempt to scandalize or lower authority of Court falls under definition of ‘criminal contempt’.
Allegations undermining judicial authority and disrupting court proceedings constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The court affirmed its power to take suo motu action in instances of criminal contempt that undermine judicial authority, irrespective of the Advocate General's opinion.
A contempt petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act is not maintainable without the Advocate General's consent, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint and accountability.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
