SC sets aside Bombay HC order jailing housing society director over ‘dog feeders’ mafia circular

New Delhi, Dec 10 The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a Bombay High Court order that had sentenced a former housing society director to one week’s simple imprisonment for criminal contempt after she issued a circular alleging that a “dog feeders’ mafia” enjoyed support from members of the higher judiciary.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal filed by Vineeta Srinandan, holding that the Bombay High Court failed to exercise its contempt powers “with due circumspection” when the contemnor tendered an unconditional apology at the very first instance.

The Bombay High Court had held the appellant-contemnor guilty under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act over a circular dated January 29, 2025, issued in her capacity as Cultural Director of Seawoods Estates Ltd. The circular accused judges of ignoring evidence of stray dog attacks and suggested the existence 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”.

While the Supreme Court agreed that the circular “does satisfy the essential ingredients of criminal contempt”, it found the Bombay High Court unjustified in imposing a custodial sentence despite the contemnor’s prompt and unqualified apology.

“Once the appellant-contemnor had, from the very first day of her appearance in the suo motu proceedings, expressed remorse and tendered an unconditional apology, the High Court was required to examine whether such apology satisfied the statutory parameters under Section 12 of the Contempt Act,” observed the Justice Vikram Nath-led Bench.

“The statutory scheme is clear; once repentance is demonstrated, the Court may act with magnanimity. However, the apology must be bona fide and must satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court,” the apex court said, adding that an apology must not be rejected merely because it appears qualified, if made in good faith.

Finding no material to suggest that the appellant’s apology lacked bona fides, the Supreme Court concluded that the Bombay High Court ought to have considered remitting the sentence.

“In our opinion, in the absence of any material suggesting that the apology was lacking in bona fides, the High Court ought to have considered remitting the sentence in accordance with law,” said the Justice Nath-led Bench. Allowing the appeal, the top court said that the ends of justice would be met by remitting the sentence imposed on the appellant-contemnor by the Bombay High Court.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor