The Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed the one-week simple imprisonment imposed by the Bombay High Court on a woman held guilty of criminal contempt for describing the Supreme Court and High Court judges as part of a “dog mafia”.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that the petitioner had expressed genuine remorse from the outset and accordingly set aside the sentence awarded by the High Court. The Court noted that the High Court’s reliance on Rajendra Sail v. M.P. High Court Bar Association and D.C. Saxena v. Chief Justice of India did not apply to the facts of the present case.

The judgment came on an appeal challenging the Bombay High Court’s order convicting the petitioner of criminal contempt and sentencing her to one week in jail along with a fine of ₹2,000. The Supreme Court had earlier stayed the operation of the impugned order in May this year.

The case arose from a dispute involving a Navi Mumbai residential society and certain dog feeders. Following a High Court direction against the society—after it barred the entry of a domestic worker who fed stray dogs—the petitioner, a resident of the society, circulated a letter containing “derogatory and objectionable” remarks about the Supreme Court, the High Court, and their judges. She alleged the existence of a nationwide “dog mafia”, listing judges who she claimed shared views favourable to dog feeders.

While convicting her, the High Court had rejected her apology, calling it insincere and “crocodile tears”. It held that her comments were not mere criticism but amounted to deliberate attempts to scandalise the judiciary and erode public confidence in the judicial system.

The High Court reasoned that an educated person could not be unaware of the consequences of such remarks, and that the petitioner’s writings showed a “well-crafted design” to malign courts and judges. It stressed that her statements could not be treated as “fair criticism” and were aimed at attributing improper motives to the judiciary, thereby interfering with the administration of justice.

The court concluded that her apology lacked true contrition and appeared to be a tactical defence to avoid punishment, warranting the imposition of a custodial sentence.

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 (Suo Motu), Crl. A. No. 2267/2025