In Brief
Vineeta Srinandan, a former Cultural Director of a residential society in Navi Mumbai, issued a circular during a pending writ petition criticising judicial orders in a stray dog feeding dispute. The circular contained language perceived as scandalising the judiciary. The Bombay High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings, convicted her under the Contempt of Courts Act, and imposed one week's imprisonment and a fine, rejecting her apology as insincere. The Supreme Court allowed her appeal, holding that where a contemnor offers an unconditional apology showing genuine remorse at the earliest opportunity, courts must remit punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt Act. The Court emphasised that contempt jurisdiction must be exercised with circumspection and mercy is integral to judicial conscience when sincere remorse is demonstrated.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.