‘Dog mafia’ remark: Contempt power not a sword to silence criticism: SC remits Bombay HC sentence

Deciding her appeal against the order, an SC bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said “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 Contempt Act to impose punishment upon the appellant-contemnor”.

The bench noted that pursuant to the February 7, 2025 order of the HC, calling upon her to show cause as to why proceedings for criminal contempt be not initiated against her, she had filed a reply-affidavit in which she “tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology”.

“She accepted that a grave error was committed in the issuance of the contemptuous circular, which was done by her upon the mental pressure exerted by the residents. She further stated that in repentance, she had also resigned from the board of directors of Seawoods (Estates Ltd).” the judgment pointed out. The HC, however, refused to accept this.

Writing for the bench, Justice Nath said, “While an act may amount to contempt, the proviso to Section 12 of the Contempt Act empowers the court to discharge the contemnor or remit the punishment awarded. The only requirement for exercising such power is that the apology must be genuine and acceptable to the court. The Explanation to Section 12 further clarifies that an apology shall not be rejected merely because it is qualified or conditional, if it is made bona fide.”

“Therefore, in our considered view, the High Court failed to exercise its contempt jurisdiction with due circumspection,” the apex court said.

It said, “Once the appellant-contemnor had, from the very first day of her appearance in the suo motu proceedings, expressed remorse and tendered an unconditional apology, the High Court was required to examine whether such apology satisfied the statutory parameters under Section 12 of the Contempt Act. Thus, 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.”

“Considering that the appellant-contemnor has, from the very outset, expressed genuine remorse and repentance for issuing the contemptuous circular, we are satisfied that the ends of justice would be met by remitting the sentence imposed by the High Court,” the court said.

The circular was issued in the wake of a pending legal dispute between Seawoods Estates Ltd and a resident over the feeding of stray dogs. On January 21, the HC passed an order on an interim application filed by one resident who claimed that SEL and its managing committee members were restraining her help from entering her house because she was feeding dogs on the premises, rendering the petitioner without any assistance in difficult times and causing harassment. The HC then directed the housing society not to prevent the domestic help from visiting her only because she was feeding dogs in the society’s premises. It said that by doing so, the society was breaching her fundamental rights. Subsequently the circular came to be issued.