Written Material Scandalizing Judiciary & Attributing Improper Motives Constitutes Criminal Contempt Under S.2(c) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Apology Not Accepted If Lacking Genuine Contrition: Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court Convicts Woman for Criminal Contempt Over Remarks Scandalizing Judiciary

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has held a woman guilty of criminal contempt of court for circulating written material that scandalized and lowered the authority of the High Court and Supreme Court judges, sentencing her to one week of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000. The court rejected her apology, finding it lacked genuine contrition and was merely a "white wash."

The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna in a suo motu criminal contempt petition initiated by the court.

Background of the Case

The contempt proceedings arose from a circular dated January 29, 2025, issued by Mrs. Vineeta Srinandan in her capacity as 'Director-Cultural' of Seawoods Estates Limited. The circular was circulated within a residential colony of about 1500 families during the pendency of a writ petition filed by Seawoods challenging certain rules related to stray dogs.

The objectionable content, as highlighted by the court, included serious insinuations such as:

• Allegations that democracy is being "crushed by Judicial System."
• Claims of a "huge well-established network of trained professionals who have a very strong presence in the Judicial system too."
• Accusations that judges avoid seeing evidence (like videos of dog attacks) and reject it dismissively (e.g., "dog wanted to play").
• Assertion of 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."
• Statement that most High Court/Supreme Court orders defend dog feeders, ignoring human life value.
• Comments calling a specific High Court order "illegal" and alleging that a judge intended to "impose this illegal order" using power on municipal officers and police.

Court Initiates Suo Motu Action

The court took note of this circular when an intervention application was filed in the pending writ petition, bringing the material on record. Finding the content highly derogatory and prima facie amounting to criminal contempt, the court on February 4, 2025, decided to initiate proceedings.

Initially, the court sought clarification from Seawoods Estates Limited, the company where Mrs. Srinandan held a directorial position, to ascertain if her actions were supported by the Board. Seawoods filed an affidavit, disowning the circular and its contents. They stated that the circular was issued by Mrs. Srinandan on her own, without board approval, attributing it to "poor, reckless, ill-considered, unintended, impulsive, and mistaken choice of words." Seawoods expressed "deepest and most sincere apologies" and sought leniency. The court accepted Seawoods' apology and decided not to proceed against the company or its board.

A show cause notice was then issued to Mrs. Vineeta Srinandan .

Contemnor's Defense and Apology

In her reply affidavit, Mrs. Srinandan purported to explain her actions by referring to issues related to dogs and pressure/threats from residents affected by dog bites. She claimed she did not apply her mind properly due to this pressure and that issuing the circular was a "grave error." While admitting the act undermined the court's dignity and stating she should not have done it, she also included justifications and then tendered what she termed an "unconditional and unqualified apology," seeking pardon. She also stated she had resigned as a Director.

Court's Analysis and Rejection of Apology

The High Court meticulously examined the contents of the circular and the contemnor's affidavit in light of the definition of 'criminal contempt' under Section 2(c) and the punishment provisions under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The bench unequivocally held that the circular satisfied the ingredients of criminal contempt as it: 1. Scandalized and lowered the authority of the court. 2. Interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings (issued during the pendency of a writ petition). 3. Obstructed the administration of justice.

The court found the remarks "well calculated, designed, and articulated to ascribe motives towards the Court and the Judges," intended to create "distrust and prejudice in the minds of the public." It described the statement that "democracy is crushed by the judicial system" as "harsh and unconstitutional." The comments about a "big dog mafia operating in the country, which has a list of High Court and Supreme Court Judges" and the description of a court order as "illegal" and enforced by misuse of power were deemed audacious and reckless attacks.

Referring to several Supreme Court precedents, including Rajendra Sail v. M. P. High Court Bar Association , D.C. Saxena v Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India , and L. D. Jaikwal Vs. State of U. P. , the court reiterated the principles governing contempt law. It emphasized that while fair criticism of judgments is permissible, imputing improper motives to judges or making scurrilous attacks on the judiciary undermines public confidence and the administration of justice, which cannot be tolerated.

The bench specifically quoted the Supreme Court's observation in L. D. Jaikwal rejecting "slap-say sorry-and forget" approaches to contempt. The court found Mrs. Srinandan 's affidavit, which included justifications alongside the apology, did not demonstrate genuine contrition but appeared to be a "white wash and/or borrowed sentiment," merely made for the sake of filing the affidavit. Consequently, the court rejected her apology.

Conviction and Sentence

Finding her actions to be severe contumacious acts deserving punishment, the Bombay High Court held Mrs. Vineeta Srinandan guilty of criminal contempt.

"The contemnor Ms. Vineeta Srinandan is held guilty of having committed criminal Contempt of Court and accordingly stands convicted under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971," the judgment stated.

The court sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000. She was directed to surrender herself to the Officer-in-Charge of the Bombay High Court Police Station.

Following a prayer by her counsel, the execution of the sentence has been suspended for a period of 10 days to allow her to pursue legal remedies. The suo motu contempt proceedings stand disposed of in these terms.