Supreme Court Sets Aside Bombay HC's Contempt Sentence Imposed On Person Over 'Dog Mafia' Comment Against Judges

The Supreme Court today remitted a woman's 1-week simple imprisonment sentence for contempt of Court over her “dog mafia” remark against the Supreme Court and the High Court/their judges.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted that the petitioner-woman showed genuine remorse from the very beginning (when she was issued show-cause notice) and set aside the High Court's order to the extent of the punishment imposed."while we are satisfied that the contemptuous circular does satisfy the essential ingredients of criminal contempt, we find ourselves unable to concur with the reasoning adopted by the High Court in invoking Section 12 of the Contempt Act to impose punishment upon the appellant-contemnor...in our opinion, in the absence of any material suggesting that the apology was lacking in bona fides, the High Court ought to have considered remitting the sentence in accordance with law", it observed.The Court also held that the High Court's reliance on the decisions in Rajendra Sail v. M. P. High Court Bar Association & Ors. and D.C. Saxena (Dr.) v. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India was misplaced, as the facts of the present case were different. While no apology was tendered in DC Saxena, in Rajendra Sail, the Court refused to accept the apology due to the gravity of the allegations.It further observed that Section 12 of the Contempt Act not only empowers the Court to impose a punishment, but also the discharge the contemnor or remit the sentence. The only requirement is that the apology should be genuine and acceptable to the Court."The statutory scheme, therefore, recognizes that once a contemnor expresses sincere remorse, even if the apology is not unqualified in form, the Court is competent to accept it and, where necessary, discharge the contemnor or remit the sentence imposed."The bench delivered the verdict on the petitioner's challenge to a Bombay High Court order which convicted her for criminal contempt and sentenced her as above. In May this year, the Court had stayed the impugned order.To recap, in connection with a dispute pending between a Navi Mumbai-based society and dog feeders, the petitioner(a resident of the society) circulated a letter making "objectionable and derogatory" comments against the Supreme Court and High Court/their judges.The letter was circulated after the High Court passed an order against the society for disallowing the house-help of one of the residents to enter, as she fed stray dogs in the premises. It stated that there was a "dog mafia" operating in the country with a list of "High Court and Supreme Court judges having views similar to the dog feeders".While pronouncing the order holding the petitioner guilty of contempt, the High Court said, "We will not accept the crocodile tears and the routine sorry mantra, usually made by the contemnors in such cases." It ordered that the petitioner undergo 1 week simple imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.In the order, it was opined that the petitioner's act amount to criminal contempt of Court as it clearly scandalized and lowered the authority of the Court."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," the High Court noted.Further, it opined that the letter published by the petitioner could not be categorized as "fair criticism" of either the Courts or any orders passed by them. In fact, her comments, the bench emphasized, were "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".While refusing to accept the apology tendered by the petitioner, the High Court stated, "We do not accept any apology, which does not show any contrition or any genuine remorse. Such apology in our opinion, is merely a weapon in defense 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 scandalising remarks against the Courts and the Judges."Appearance: Sr Adv Dama Seshadri Naidu; AoR Yash S Vijay; Advocates Pranjal Agarwal, Dixita Gohil, Kms Sivani, Anisha Mahajan, Deepak Sharma, and Shikhar AggarwalCase Title:...

Supreme Court Sets Aside Bombay HC's Contempt Sentence Imposed On Person Over 'Dog Mafia' Comment Against Judges

Debby Jain

Tags