Contempt Power Not A Personal Armour For Judges Or Sword To Silence Criticism : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has underscored that the power to punish for contempt is not a tool to silence critics or shield judges from scrutiny, declaring that contempt jurisdiction must never become a personal armour for the judiciary. Emphasising that the authority to punish necessarily carries the power to forgive, the Court said mercy must remain central to the judicial conscience when a contemnor shows genuine remorse.

"The power to punish necessarily carries within it the concomitant power to forgive, where the individual before the Court demonstrates genuine remorse and repentance for the act that has brought him to this position. Therefore, in exercise of contempt jurisdiction, Courts must remain conscious that this power is not a personal armour for Judges, nor a sword to silence criticism. After all, it requires fortitude to acknowledge contrition for one's lapse, and an even greater virtue to extend forgiveness to the erring. Mercy, therefore, must remain an integral part of the judicial conscience, to be extended where the contemnor sincerely acknowledges his lapse and seeks to atone for it," observed a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Jusice Sandeep Mehta.

The Court made these observations while setting aside a Bombay High Court order that had sentenced one Vineeta Srinandan to one week's simple imprisonment for issuing a circular containing disparaging remarks against the judiciary in the context of a dispute over Animal Birth Control Rules.

Although the Supreme Court agreed that the circular was contemptuous and capable of scandalising the court, it held that the High Court had erred in refusing to accept Srinandan's unconditional apology. The bench noted that she had appeared at the first opportunity, expressed remorse and tendered an apology that satisfied the requirements of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

The Court found that the High Court's reliance on earlier contempt precedents was misplaced, as those cases involved more serious allegations or situations where the contemnor had offered no apology at all. Here, the factual matrix was materially different, and the statutory scheme obliged the court to consider remission when genuine repentance was shown.

Reiterating that human fallibility is recognised within the framework of contempt law, the bench said courts must act with magnanimity when repentance is sincere. Concluding that the ends of justice would be met by accepting Srinandan's apology, the Supreme Court set aside the sentence and allowed the appeal.

Also from the judgment - Supreme Court Sets Aside Bombay HC's Contempt Sentence Imposed On Person Over 'Dog Mafia' Comment Against Judges