The Supreme Court has reiterated that the contempt jurisdiction cannot be used as a weapon to stifle criticism or as a protective shield for judges, stressing that it must be exercised with restraint, fairness, and compassion. The Court emphasised that while the judiciary holds the authority to punish for contempt, this power inherently includes the duty to forgive when an individual expresses sincere contrition.

“Since the authority to punish also encompasses the power to pardon, courts must approach contempt proceedings with the understanding that this jurisdiction is neither a personal fortress for judges nor an instrument to suppress dissent. Recognising one’s mistake requires courage, and extending forgiveness demands an even higher sense of judicial virtue. Mercy must, therefore, remain a guiding principle whenever the contemnor demonstrates genuine remorse,” observed a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

The remarks came as the Supreme Court overturned a Bombay High Court order sentencing Vineeta Srinandan to one week’s simple imprisonment for issuing a circular containing derogatory comments against the judiciary regarding a dispute over Animal Birth Control Rules.

While affirming that the circular was indeed contemptuous and capable of lowering the authority of the court, the Supreme Court held that the High Court wrongly refused to accept Srinandan’s unconditional apology. It noted that she appeared at the earliest opportunity, expressed regret, and offered an apology fully in line with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

The Bench further held that the High Court’s reliance on prior contempt rulings was misplaced since those precedents dealt with far graver allegations or situations where no apology was offered. In contrast, the present case involved a materially different factual setting, requiring the court to consider remission when authentic repentance was evident.

Reaffirming that the law of contempt acknowledges human error, the Court said that judicial magnanimity must prevail when repentance is honest. Accepting Srinandan’s apology, the Supreme Court quashed the sentence and allowed her appeal.

Also from the ruling: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bombay HC’s Contempt Sentence Over ‘Dog Mafia’ Remark Against Judges

Appearance: Sr Adv Dama Seshadri Naidu; AoR Yash S Vijay; Advocates Pranjal Agarwal, Dixita Gohil, Kms Sivani, Anisha Mahajan, Deepak Sharma, Shikhar Aggarwal
Case Title: VINEETA SRINANDAN v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ON ITS OWN MOTION, Crl.A. No. 2267/2025