Bombay High Court
High Court Of Judicature At Bombay On Its … vs Vineeta Srinandan on 23 April, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
Digitally signed
2025:BHC-AS:18189-DB
by PRASHANT
PRASHANT
VILAS RANE
SMCCP-2-25.DOC
VILAS Date:
RANE 2025.04.23
14:57:40 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SUO MOTU CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2025
High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own motion ...Petitioner
Versus
Mrs. Vineeta Srinandan ...Respondent
_______
Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Ativ Patel, Mr. Viloma Shah, Mr.
Harshad Vyas i/b AVP Partners for Contemnor/ Show Cause Noticee Mrs.
Vineeta Srinandan.
Mr. Amjith M. Anandhan a/w. Mr. Pranjal Agarwal, Mr. Dixita Gohil, Mr.
Ujjawal Pratap, Mr. Rounak Burad i/b Ms. Sandhya Yadav for the Petitioner No.1
in WP/11652/2023.
Ms. S.V. Sonawane a/w. Mr. Satish Muley, Mr. Mosin Naik, Mr. Zhoaib Sayyed
for the petitioner in WP/1677/2025 and respondent in WP/11652/2023.
Mr. Y.S. Bhate a/w. Mr. D.P. Singh i/b Mr. A.A. Ansari for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ankit Ojha a/w. Mr. R.K. Dubey for respondent no.3 in WP/11652/2023.
Ms. Neha Bhide, GP a/w. Mr. M.M. Pabale AGP for State/respondent Nos.2 in
WP/11652/2023 & respondents Nos.4,5 & 7 in WP/1677/2025.
Ms. Manisha Shekhar Jagtap for Respondent No.4/PMC in WP/11652/2023
and for Respondent No.3/ CIDCO in WP/1677/2025.
Mr. Tejesh Dande for Respondent No.6 in WP/11652/2023 and for Respondent
No.2 in WP/1677/2025.
______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATE: 23 APRIL 2025.
JUDGMENT (Per: 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.
Page 1 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOC
2. Briefly the facts are: In the proceedings of Writ Petition 1 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 objectionable contents which we
have emphasized reads thus:
“SEL/CLR/31/6558/2025 29th Jan. 2025
How Democracy is being crushed by Judicial System?
The entire country has a stray dog menace, and most of the urban
residential societies in class A cities are struggling to fight this dog feeder’s
mafia spread across the country. This is such a huge well-established network
of trained professionals who have a very strong presence in the Judicial system
too.
So much so that if affected societies want to show videos or photos of
the dog attacks, show information of fake cases filed by dog feeders, or show
videos showing training of feeders where they are training their female
members to file fake molestation cases against people who stop their illegal
activities of feeding pack of strays in areas close to houses of other people,
then Judges don’t want to see them and completely avoid taking cognizance of
such material. In one case, where we had shown the video of a Dog attack on a
small girl in front of building 11 to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court made
fun of it and outrightly rejected it by saying that the dog wanted to play with
that girl.
Now we are convinced that there is 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.
1 Writ Petition no.11652 of 2023 (Seawoods Estates Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.)
Page 2 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOC
No matter how many people are dying or attacked in the country
every year but most of the high court/supreme court orders will defend dog
feeders ignoring the value of human life.
…….
…….
2. Despite the latest status being on record, the Hon’ble Court insisted
on implementing the 20th March 2023 order on us which is meant for
community animals (which are born inside) and we do not have any
community animals at all. Still, Justice wants to impose this illegal order on us
by using his power on the NMMC officer and the police.
For, SEAWOODS Estates Limited
SD/-
Vineeta Srinandan
Director Cultural.
(emphasis supplied)
3. Such material was highly derogatory, objectionable and would scandalize
the Court amounting to Criminal Contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c)
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In these circumstances, this Court on 4
February 2025 passed an order making the following relevant observations :
“1. Today Ms. Sonawane, learned Counsel for the added respondent Mrs.
Leela Verma has placed on record an affidavit. At the outset, she submits that
there are communications addressed by one Mrs. Vineeta Srinandan, Cultural
Director of the petitioner, which she has reservations to read in the open Court
considering the contents of the same being highly derogatory nature and
completely undermining the esteem dignity of the Court. We are disturbed by
the documents placed on record on behalf of the Mrs. Leela Verma – the added
respondent in the proceedings, and more particularly, E-mail dated 24 January
2025 addressed by Mr. Alok Agarwal, letter dated 26 January 2025 addressed
to Mrs. Leela Verma and the circular dated 29 January 2025, these two
communications are issued by Mrs. Vineeta Srinandan, Cultural Director of the
petitioner.
2. Mr. Alok Agarwal, Authorized Representative of Seawoods Estate
Limited – Petitioner is present in the Court. Having read the contents of all
these communications, in our opinion on the face of it, amounts to a Criminal
Contempt of Court. Also the e-mail addressed by Mr. Alok Agarwal ex facie
shows his disregard to the order dated 21 January 2025 passed by this Court.
3. We have no manner of doubt that contempt proceedings are required
to be initiated for such conscious and brazen derogatory and objectionable
contents of the said communications. We would have intended to immediately
commence criminal contempt proceedings as the law would mandate against
Mrs. Vineeta Srinandan, considering the impurity and tenor of her writings,Page 3 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOChowever, as we are informed that she is at present out of India in Abu Dhabi,
we are unable to proceed against her. We accept the statement that she is not in
the country. An intimation be given by the petitioner of her return.”
(emphasis supplied)
4. The Court, however, intended to ascertain whether it was a singular act on
the part of the contemnor or it was supported by the Board of Directors of
Seawoods, so as to examine whether such material was a collective intent of such
body of persons to bring a disrepute to the Court and interfere in the
administration of justice. Accordingly, the Court on 4 February, 2025 directed
the Seawoods to explain its stand in this regard. The relevant observation as made
by the Court reads thus:
“7. While parting, we may observe that the conduct of Mrs. Vineeta
Srinandan as observed above amounts to a Criminal contempt of a serious
nature. We presume that the same was not supported by other office bearers of
the Board of Directors of the petitioner. Although, we have issued aforesaid
directions to enable the petitioner to remedy the situation and such
communications being removed, we have not examined the issue whether Mrs.
Vineeta Srinandan has addressed these communications in consultation with
the other office bearers of the petitioner’s management. If this be so, then
appropriate action as per law would be required to be taken against all such
persons who are responsible and who have aided in issuing such material
lowering the authority of the Court and interfering in the administration of
justice and the Court proceedings, after considering the relevant facts in that
regard and after considering the nature of the compliances as directed by us,
whether are fulfilled in letter and spirit.”
5. Accordingly, the Court by its order dated 7 February, 2025 directed that a
show cause notice be issued to the contemnor as to why an action for having
committed criminal contempt be not initiated against her. The relevant
observations made by this Court read thus:
“7. However, we have not the slightest of doubt that looking at the nature
of the communications and more particularly, the language as used in the
communication which, as observed by us, lowers the dignity of the Court as
also interferes in the administration of justice, contempt proceedings are
required to be initiated against its author Mrs. Vineeta Srinandan.
Page 4 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOC
8. We accordingly issue a show cause notice to Mrs. Vineeta Srinandan to
show cause as to why she should not be punished for having committed
criminal contempt of Court.
9. Let Show cause notice be issued to Mrs. Vineeta Srinandan within one
week from today, to be served on her by all permissible modes. Mrs. Vineeta
Srinandan is present in the Court. She has taken notice of this order and
accordingly, she will file a reply affidavit to the show cause notice. Mrs. Vineeta
Srinandan says that as she will be travelling she would be also prepared to
receive the show cause notice by email the details of which she has furnished.
10. Let reply to the show cause notice be placed on record on or before
adjourned date of hearing”
6. In pursuance of our aforesaid orders, on behalf of Seawoods, Mr. Alok
Agarwal, its authorized representative, has placed on record an affidavit inter alia
disowning such materials to contend that the Board of Directors had no
knowledge of such circulars being issued by the contemnor and have attributed
the same solely to the contemnor, who was the Cultural Director of Seawoods.
The relevant contents of such affidavit are required to be noted, which read thus:
“6. Further, the affiant wishes to clarify that, although the impugned
circular dated 29th January 2025 was issued by Mrs. Vineeta Srinandan in her
capacity as the ‘Director-Cultural’ and under the authority of the AGM
Resolution dated 29th September 2022 authorizing her to act for the
Petitioner No. 01 in matters related to stray dogs, the circular and/or its
contents were never discussed or approved or accepted by any of the Board
members and so it does not reflect the sentiments, values or views of the,
affiant, Petitioner No. 01 or the board of directors, and was a case of poor,
reckless, ill-considered, unintended, impulsive, and mistaken choice of words
that we wholeheartedly regret having deepest shame of our actions. However,
the Board of Directors, fully acknowledge the mistake of having overlooked
the issuance of such a reckless and ill-considered circular and for not having
noticed it at the earliest and for not having withdrawn it immediately. Thus,
for having overlooked such a grave error and reckless choice of words, the
affiant herein personally and for and on behalf the Petitioner No. 01 and its
Board of Directors express our deepest and most sincere apologies to this
Hon’ble High Court and humbly prays for leniency and mercy of this Hon’ble
High Court and respectfully seek to be pardoned for such actions.”
(emphasis supplied)
Page 5 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOC
7. Accordingly this Court in its order dated 21 February 2025 made
observations that the Board of Directors of Seawoods had completely disowned
the actions of the contemnor. The said order reads thus:
“1. In our detailed order dated 7 February 2025 we have observed that
prima facie there is a criminal contempt of Court, by the author of the
objectionable materials – Mrs. Veenita Srinandan. Accordingly, the Court
issued a show cause notice to Mrs. Veenita Srinandan to show cause as to why
she should not be punished for having committed criminal contempt of Court.
The show cause notice was served on Mrs. Veenita Srinandan. Responding to
the same, she has made an affidavit dated 18 February 2025. A copy of the
affidavit is tendered as also is being served on all the parties.
2. There is also an affidavit filed on behalf of the Board of Directors of
the petitioner – Seawoods Estate Limited, of Mr. Alok Agarwal dated 20
February 2025 wherein the deponent on behalf of the Board of Directors has
taken a clear stand that the objectionable material was issued by Mrs. Veenita
Srinandan and that the contents of such documents were never discussed or
approved or accepted by any of the Board members and accordingly, such
material does not reflect the sentiments, values or view of the deponents
and/or of the petitioner – Seawoods Estate Limited or its Board of Directors . It
is stated that such action of Mrs. Veenita Srinandan was a case of poor, reckless,
ill-considered, unintended, impulsive and mistaken choice of words, which the
Board of Directors and the deponent wholeheartedly regret having deepest
shame to such action. The Board of Directors have acknowledged the mistake
of having overlooked the issuance of such reckless and ill-considered circular,
as stated in the affidavit as also having not noticed it and not having
withdrawn the same immediately. Accordingly, they have tendered their
deepest and sincere apology to the Court and pray for leniency and mercy and
sought pardon for such action. The affidavit has also stated the remedial
measures which are taken by the petitioner as set out in paragraph 7 thereof.
The affidavit echoes their remorse and regret to such actions which are caused
by such materials which undermined the dignity and esteem of the Court and
the process of law, while an unconditional apology being tendered by such
affidavit.
3. Thus, the petitioner – Seawoods Estate Limited through its Board of
Directors have disowned the acts of Mrs. Veenita Srinandan being not the
actions which were approved by the petitioner or by its Board of Directors.
4. Considering the statement as made in the affidavit, we are of the
opinion that the apology as tendered by the Board of Directors in the affidavit
filed by Mr. Alok Agarwal, is required to be accepted. We accordingly do not
wish to proceed against the petitioner – Seawoods Estate Limited and its Board
of Directors.
5. However, insofar as Mrs. Veenita Srinandan is concerned, we intend to
examine her affidavit. We shall hear the learned Counsel for Mrs. Veenita
Srinandan on all such issues and more importantly as to how she conceived her
thoughts with such impunity in issuing the objectionable communications asPage 6 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOCnoted by us. We shall also consider whether the statements as made in the
affidavit in any manner would justify a lenient view to be taken as urged by her
and / or what would be the appropriate order the law would mandate the
Court to pass under the Contempt of Courts Act, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case.
6. Accordingly we shall proceed to adjudicate the show cause notice.
Adjourned for hearing on the show cause notice on 4 March 2025 at 4 p.m.”
8. The contemnor has filed a reply affidavit, in which she purports to explain
as to why action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be taken against
her, and after saying so, she has also purported to tender what she describes to be
an unconditional and unqualified apology. In about 18 paragraphs, i.e., in
paragraph nos. 3.1 to 3.18 of her affidavit, she has made averments on merits, that
is, issues in regard to dogs including her purported love for pet dogs. In
concluding, she intends to furnish a justification that due to pressure, threats and
abuse from the members of Seawoods, who were either attacked or have been
bitten by dogs, she did not apply her mind and think appropriately, before issuing
the circular dated 29 January 2025. She says that it was a grave error on her part
to issue such correspondence. She also admits that it has undermined the dignity
of the Court and she should not have done this at any cost. She has also claimed
that she is an educated citizen of India and that she has committed a grave
mistake. She also claims that she has regard for judiciary and hence, seeks a
pardon. She also stated that she has resigned as a Director from Seawoods and
that no action be taken against her under the Contempt of Courts Act and she be
discharged from the proceedings. In our opinion, on a holistic reading of the
reply affidavit, the contemnor’s statements do not appear to be any compunction
on her conscious acts of issuing such derogatory materials to scandalize the Court.
Page 7 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOC
It appears to be more of a white wash and/or borrowed sentiment, wholly
contrary to the intention with which such objectionable material/publication,
subject matter of the contempt proceedings, was issued by her. In fact, it appears
that such statements are merely for the sake of the paper used for the affidavit.
9. Mr. Nankani, learned Senior Counsel has appeared for the contemnor.
Referring to the affidavit in reply to the show cause notice, he has submitted that
a lenient view be taken by the Court, not disputing that the contemnor has
grossly erred in issuing such contemptuous material, which lowers the dignity of
the Court by such reckless allegations against the Judges and the Court system.
He submits that the contemnor is well educated and is engaged in teaching and
performing as a classical dancer for cultural organizations. He submits that earlier,
at no point of time, she has acted contrary to law much less has indulged in such
objectionable activities.
Discussion
10. Having noted the defence of the contemnor, we note the relevant
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, namely Section 2(c) which
defines ‘criminal contempt’ and Section 12 which defines ‘Punishment for
contempt of courts’. The said provisions read thus:
“2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words,
spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of
any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which –
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the
authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of
any judicial proceeding; orPage 8 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOC
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct,
the administration of justice in any other manner;
… .. … ..
Section 12. Punishment for contempt of court.-
(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a
contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two
thousand rupees, or with both :
Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment
awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the
court.
Explanation.–An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it
is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in
force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-
section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate
to it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is
found guilty of a civil contempt, the Court, if it considers that a fine will not
meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary
shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be
detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may
think fit.
(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any
undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the
contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the
company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the
company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment
be enforced with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each
such person :
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any
such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was
committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to
prevent its commission.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the
contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and
it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or
connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director,
manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager,
secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt
and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the
detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer.
Explanation.– For the purpose of sub-sections (4) and (5),–
(a) “company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or other
association of individuals; and
Page 9 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOC
(b) “director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.”
11. We have no manner of doubt that in the publication/circular as issued by
the contemnor, being the material in writing, fully satisfies the ingredients of
what would amount to criminal contempt of Court as defined under Section 2(c)
of the Contempt of Courts Act, inasmuch as it clearly scandalizes and lowers the
authority of the Court. It was issued during the pendency of the aforesaid writ
petition filed by Seawoods and for such reasons, the second ingredient of the said
provision of such material causing interference with the due course of judicial
proceedings, as also to obstruct the administration of justice stands fully satisfied.
Thus, the contemnor’s actions of issuing such material fall within clauses (i) to
(iii) of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, the ingredients of which are
satisfied in the contemnor issuing such objectionable circular/material. We are
also of the opinion that it is not expected from an educated person like that of the
contemnor to make such comments in regard to the Courts and the Judges of the
higher Courts like the Supreme Court and the High Courts. It cannot be
believed that when the contemnor undertook such contumacious writing, she was
not conscious or could be said to be unaware of the consequences of such writing.
In fact, right from the “title of the article” apart from its other contents as
underscored by us, shows a dedicated attempt, a well thought of design calculated
to bring the Court and the Judges to a disrepute and intended to tarnish the
judicial system so as to interfere with the due course of justice and administration
of law by the courts with impunity.
Page 10 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOC
12. Having so observed, we proceed to discuss as to how the law would require
us to consider the situation in hand from the principles as laid down in the
decisions of the Supreme Court.
13. In Rajendra Sail Vs. M. P. High Court Bar Association & Ors. 2, the
Supreme Court was concerned with the case of the appellant, who had rubbished
and commented on a High Court decision which was widely reported. The
respondent – High Court Bar Association had initiated contempt action against
the appellant as also the editor and publisher of the newspaper. The appellant,
however, resorted a stand that he was not satisfied with the judgment of the High
Court and hence, had made a bona fide analysis of the judgment without
intending to disrepute the judiciary in general and the judges in particular. He
also contended that he expressed his personal grief and emotional trauma, which
had arisen from the judgment of the High Court. He also took a stand that he was
ready to tender an apology. The High Court delved on such contentions in
reaching to a conclusion that the comments as made by the appellant did not
amount to a fair and reasonable criticism of the judgment and that the contents of
his criticism as appearing in the news report scandalized the Court. The High
Court also refused to accept the apology tendered by the appellant and held him
guilty of Contempt of Court and sentenced the appellant as also the editor to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months. It is in such context, the Supreme
Court examined the principles relating to the law of Contempt. The following
principles were enunciated by the Supreme Court :
2 (2005) 6 SCC 109
Page 11 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOC
(i) that it has been repeatedly held that rule of law is a foundation of
democratic society and the judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law.
(ii) The confidence which the people repose in the courts of justice, cannot
be allowed to be tarnished, diminished and or wiped out by the contemptuous
behavior of any person.
(iii) If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and
true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and
authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs.
(iv) The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the
people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice.
(v) When the foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create
disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by creating distrust in
its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded and it is for this
purpose the courts are entrusted with extraordinary powers of punishing for
contempt of court those who indulge in acts, which tend to undermine the
authority of law and bring it in disrepute and disrespect by scandalising it.
When the court exercises this power, it does not do so to vindicate the dignity
and honour of the individual Judge who is personally attacked or scandalised,
but to uphold the majesty of the law and of the administration of justice.
The following observations as made by the Supreme Court are required to be
noted:-
“12. The law as it stands today is same as has been aptly put by Lord Atkin
in Andre Paul Terence Ambard V. Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago:
(AIR 1936 PC 141)
No wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises
the ordinary right of criticising in good faith in private or public the
public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public
way: the wrongheaded are permitted to err therein: provided that
members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to
those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely
exercising a right of criticism and not acting in malice or attempting
to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is
not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny
and respectful even though outspoken comments of ordinary men”.
…. … .. ..
43. ……The speech that judgment is rubbish and deserves to be thrown in
a dustbin cannot be said to be a fair criticism of judgment. These comments
have transgressed the limits of fair and bonafide criticism and have a clear
tendency to affect the dignity and prestige of the judiciary. It has a tendency to
create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity,
ability or fairness of the Judge and to deter actual and prospective litigants
from placing complete reliance upon the court’s administration of justice, it is
Page 12 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOC
also likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the Judge himself in the
discharge of his judicial duties.
44. When there is danger of grave mischief being done in the matter of
administration of justice, the animadversion cannot be ignored and viewed
with placid equanimity. If the criticism is likely to interfere with due
administration of justice or undermine the confidence which the public
reposes in the Courts of law as Courts of justice, the criticism would cease to be
fair and reasonable criticism but would scandalise Courts and substantially
interfere with administration of justice. Having perused the record, we are
unable to accept the contention urged on behalf of Mr. Rajendra Sail that on
facts the conclusions arrived at by the High Court are not sustainable. Once
this conclusion is reached, clearly the publication amounts to a gross contempt
of court. It has serious tendency to undermine the confidence of the society in
the administration.
48. The sentence awarded to Rajendra Sail by the High Court having
regard to nature of contempt cannot be said to be unjustified. But having
regard to his background and the organization to which he belongs which, it is
claimed, brought before various courts including this court many public
interest litigation for general public good, we feel that ends of justice would be
met if sentence of six month is reduced to sentence of one week simple
imprisonment. We order accordingly.
49. In view of the above, sentence awarded to the appellants other than
Rajendra Sail is set aside and their apologies accepted and their appeals allowed
accordingly. The sentence of Rajendra Sail is reduced to one week and to that
extent impugned judgment and order of the High Court is modified and
appeal disposed of accordingly.”
14. In Brahma Prakash Sharma Vs. State of U. P. 3, it was held that if the
publication of disparaging statements was calculated to interfere with the due
course of justice or proper administration of law by such court, it can be punished
summarily as contempt is a wrong done to the public. It will be injury to the
public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding
the integrity, ability or fairness of the Judge or to deter actual and prospective
litigants from placing complete reliance upon the court’s administration of justice,
or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the Judge himself in the
discharge of his judicial duties.
3 1953 SCR 1169 : AIR 1954 SC 10 : 1954 Cri LJ 238
Page 13 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOC
15. In Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra 4, it was held
that the test was whether the material was calculated to interfere with the due
course of justice or the proper administration of law by the court. It is in the latter
case that it will be punishable as contempt.
16. In C.K. Daphtary & Ors. v. O. P. Gupta & Ors 5, it was held that a
scurrilous attack on a Judge in respect of a judgment or past conduct has adverse
effect on the due administration of justice. It was observed that such sort of attack
in a country like ours has the inevitable effect of undermining the confidence of
the public in the Judiciary. If confidence in the Judiciary goes, the due
administration of justice definitely suffers. There can be no justification of
contempt of Court.
17. In R. C. Cooper v. Union of India 6, it was observed that those who err in
their criticism by indulging in vilification of the institution of Courts,
administration of justice and the instruments through which the administration
acts, should take heed for they will act at their own peril. The Court observed
that this was enough caution to persons embarking on the path of criticism.
18. In P. N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker & Ors7, it was held that any criticism of
the judicial system or the Judges, which hampers the administration of justice or
which erodes the faith in the objective approach of the Judges and brings
4 (1969) 2 SCR 779 : AIR 1971 SC 221 : 1971 Cri LJ 268
5 [(1971) 1 SCC 626]
6 [(1970) 2 SCC 298]
7 [(1988) 3 SCC 167]
Page 14 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOC
administration of justice to ridicule, must be prevented. The contempt of court
proceedings arises out of that attempt. It was held that judgments can be
criticized, motives to the Judges cannot be attributed, it brings the administration
of justice into deep disrepute. Faith in the administration of justice is one of the
pillars on which democratic institution functions and sustains. In the free market
place of ideas, criticism about the judicial system or Judges should be welcomed
so long as such criticism does not impair or hamper the administration of justice.
19. In Roshan Lal Ahuja, In re8 a three judge bench of the Supreme Court held
that Judgments of the court are open to criticism. Judges and courts are not
unduly sensitive or touchy to fair and reasonable criticism of their judgments.
Fair comments, even if, outspoken, but made without any malice or attempting
to impair the administration of justice and made in good faith in proper language
don’t attract any punishment for contempt of court. However, when from the
criticism a deliberate, motivated and calculated attempt is discernible to bring
down the image of the judiciary in the estimation of the public or to impair the
administration of justice or tend to bring the administration of justice into
disrepute, the courts must bestir themselves to uphold their dignity and the
majesty of law. No litigant can be permitted to overstep the limits of fair, bona
fide and reasonable criticism of a judgment and bring the courts generally in
disrepute or attribute motives to the Judges rendering the judgment. It was held
that perversity, calculated to undermine the judicial system and the prestige of the
court, cannot be permitted or otherwise the very foundation of the judicial
8 1993 Supp (4) SCC 446
Page 15 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOC
system is bound to be undermined and weakened and that would be bad not only
for the preservation of rule of law but also for the independence of judiciary.
Liberty of free expression is not to be confused with a licence to make unfounded,
unwarranted and irresponsible aspersions against the Judges or the courts in
relation to judicial matters. No system of justice can tolerate such an unbridled
licence. It was observed that “Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be
allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments
of ordinary men”, but the members of the public have to abstain from imputing
improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice and exercise
their right of free criticism without malice or in any way attempting to impair
administration of justice and refrain from making any comment which tends to
scandalize the court in relation to judicial matters. If a person committing such
gross contempt of court were to get the impression that he will get off lightly it
would be a most unfortunate state of affairs. Sympathy in such a case would be
totally misplaced and any mercy would have no meaning. It was observed that his
action called for deterrent punishment so that it also serves as an example to
others and there is no repetition of such contempt by any other person.
20. In D.C. Saxena (Dr.) v Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India 9, the Court while
dealing with the meaning of the word ‘scandalising’, held that it is an expression
of scurrilous attack on the majesty of justice which is calculated to undermine the
authority of the courts and public confidence in the administration of justice. The
malicious or slanderous publication inculcates in the mind of the people a general
9 [(1996) 5 SCC 216]
Page 16 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOC
disaffection and dissatisfaction on the judicial determination and indisposes their
mind to obey them. If the people’s allegiance to the law is so fundamentally
shaken, it is the most vital and most dangerous obstruction of justice calling for
urgent action. The Court held as under:-
“40. Scandalising the court, therefore, would mean hostile criticism of Judges
as Judges or judiciary. Any personal attack upon a Judge in connection with
the office he holds is dealt with under law of libel or slander. Yet defamatory
publication concerning the Judge as a Judge brings the court or Judges into
contempt, a serious impediment to justice and an inroad on the majesty of
justice. Any caricature of a Judge calculated to lower the dignity of the court
would destroy, undermine or tend to undermine public confidence in the
administration of justice or the majesty of justice. It would, therefore, be
scandalising the Judge as a Judge, in other words, imputing partiality,
corruption, bias, improper motives to a Judge is scandalisation of the court and
would be contempt of the court. Even imputation of lack of impartiality or
fairness to a Judge in the discharge of his official duties amounts to contempt.
The gravamen of the offence is that of lowering his dignity or authority or an
affront to the majesty of justice. When the contemnor challenges the authority
of the court, he interferes with the performance of duties of Judge’s office or
judicial process or administration of justice or generation or production of
tendency bringing the Judge or judiciary into contempt. Section 2(c) of the
Act, therefore, defines criminal contempt in wider articulation that any
publication, whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representations, or otherwise of any matter or the doing of any other act
whatsoever which scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to
lower the authority of any court; or prejudices, or interferes or tends to
interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or interferes or tends
to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice
in any other manner, is a criminal contempt. Therefore, a tendency to
scandalise the court or tendency to lower the authority of the court or
tendency to interfere with or tendency to obstruct the administration of justice
in any manner or tendency to challenge the authority or majesty of justice,
would be a criminal contempt. The offending act apart, any tendency if it may
lead to or tends to lower the authority of the court is a criminal contempt. Any
conduct of the contemnor which has the tendency or produces a tendency to
bring the Judge or court into contempt or tends to lower the authority of the
court would also be contempt of the court.”
21. In J. R. Parashar, Advocate & Ors. v Prasant Bhushan, Advocate & Ors 10,
the Supreme Court made the following significant observations:-
“18. ……… to ascribe motives to a Judge is to sow the seed of distrust in the
minds of the public about the administration of justice as a whole and nothing
is more pernicious in its consequences than to prejudice the mind of the10 [(2001) 6 SCC 735]
Page 17 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOCpublic against Judges of the court who are responsible for implementing the
law. Judges do not defend their decisions in public and if citizens disrespect
the persons laying down the law, they cannot be expected to respect the law
laid down by them. The only way the Judge can defend a decision is by the
reasoning in the decision itself and it is certainly open to being criticized by
anyone who thinks that it is erroneous”.
22. Having considered the aforesaid well-settled principles of law, we have no
manner of doubt that the publication in question as issued by the contemnor
imputing improper motives to the Court and the Judges of such higher Courts, in
no manner whatsoever can be categorized to be a fair criticism of either the
Courts or any orders passed by the Court. In fact, the comments as made by the
contemnor are well calculated, designed, and articulated to ascribe motives
towards the Court and the Judges. They are intended to create a feeling of
distrust and prejudice in the minds of the public against the Courts, Judges and
the administration of justice. The contemnor certainly intended to scandalize the
Court. Further, it is too harsh and unconstitutional when the contemnor writes
that the democracy is crushed by the judicial system. Her comments in
paragraph 2 of such publication, are a direct assault on the judicial proceedings,
clearly interfering in the administration of justice. Her further comments as
highlighted by us in paragraph 3 have transgressed all limits of what can be
expected from any reasonable person of prudence and who would have a fair idea
of the system of administration of justice by the Courts. The comments as made
by the contemnor are reckless comments when she says that there is a “big dog
mafia operating in the country, which has a list of High Court and Supreme
Court Judges”. Her comment in paragraph 4 of the publication is also an
audacious attack on the Courts pernicious in its consequences, seriously affecting
Page 18 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOC
the administration of justice and the confidence of people in the justice delivery
system. The last paragraph of the publication is also a comment on the order
dated 20 March 2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and on the
learned Judges, who passed the order, when she writes that the learned Judge
wants to impose an illegal order by using his power on the Municipal
Corporation officers and the police.
23. With such contents of the writings of the contemnor as analyzed by us,
there is hardly any scope for us to overlook the impact which such writing has
intended to create on the mind of any reasonable person and the impression one
would have on the confidence, which the people repose in the Courts. The
question is whether with such vilification of the institution of the Court, we
nonetheless accept the crocodile tears and the routine mantra of ‘sorry’ or
‘apology’ purportedly being tendered by the contemnor. When we say so, we are
reminded of the words of Thakkar, J. in L. D. Jaikwal Vs. State of U. P. 11, when
His Lordship observed :
“We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the “slap-say sorry-and
forget” school of thought in administration of contempt
jurisprudence. Saying ‘sorry’ does not make the slapper poorer. Nor
does the cheek which has taken the slap smart less upon the said
hypocritical word being uttered through the very lips which not long
ago slandered a judicial officer without the slightest compunction.”
24. In our clear opinion, the contemnor has taken all the opportunities even to
justify on merits the circumstances under which, she has issued such
objectionable writing and at the same time, has recited the apology mantra. We
do not accept any apology, which does not show any contrition or any genuine
11 (1984) 3 SCC 405
Page 19 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOC
remorse. Such apology in our opinion, is merely a weapon in defence with an
impression that the contemnor can get away by such recitals. Thus, such conduct
of the contemnor cannot escape punishment, being a consequence of her severe
contumacious acts of making scurrilous and scandalizing remarks against the
Courts and the Judges.
25. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the clear opinion that the
contemnor is guilty of having committed criminal contempt of Court and
accordingly, deserves maximum punishment to be awarded. The iron hands of
law apply equally irrespective of the category of the contemnors. However, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, we intend to impose a lesser punishment.
Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) 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.
(ii) Ms. Vineeta Srinandan is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one week with a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rs Two
Thousand only).
(iii) Ms. Vineeta Srinandan shall surrender herself to the Officer-in-
Charge of the Bombay High Court Police Station.
(iv) Warrant be issued accordingly.
26. Suo Motu Contempt proceedings stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Page 20 of 21
23 April 2025
Kiran Kawre
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::
SMCCP-2-25.DOC
27. At this stage, Mr. Nankani, learned senior counsel for the contemnor, prays
that the sentence as awarded be suspended for some time. We suspend the
execution of the sentence for a period of 10 days from today.
(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Page 21 of 21 23 April 2025 Kiran Kawre ::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2025 22:27:55 :::