The Bombay High Court on Wednesday convicted a woman under charge of criminal contempt of court for calling the court "dog mafia" and making "objectionable" comments against the court and also the judges over their order in favour of dog feeders in a case pertaining to a dispute between a Navi Mumbai-based society and dog feeders.

A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna had issued a show cause notice to one Vineeta Srinandan, a resident of the plush Seawoods Estate society in Navi Mumbai, who had circulated a letter making 'objectionable and derogatory' comments against the Supreme Court as well as the HC after the High Court passed an order against the society for disallowing house help of one of the residents to enter the society, as she fed stray dogs in the premises.

While pronouncing the order, the judges said, "We will not accept the Crocodile tears and the routine sorry mantra, usually made by the contemnors in such cases."

The Court has sent the woman to one week simple imprisonment and has also imposed a fine of Rs 2,000.

In its order, the judges opined that Srinandan's act amounts to criminal contempt of court as it clearly scandalises and lowers the authority of the Court.

"We are also of the opinion that 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 bench said in the order. 

Further, the judges held that the letter published by Srinandan cannot be categorised as a "fair criticism" of either the Courts or any orders passed by the Court. In fact, her comments, the judges emphasised, are "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."

The judges said that Srinandan certainly intended to scandalise the Court.

"Further, it is too harsh and unconstitutional when she writes that the democracy is crushed by the judicial system. Her comments, are a direct assault on the judicial proceedings, clearly interfering in the administration of justice. Her further comments have transgressed all limits of what can be expected from any reasonable person of prudence and who would have a fair idea of the system of administration of justice by the Courts. The comments are reckless, when she says that there is a 'big dog mafia operating in the country, which has a list of High Court and Supreme Court Judges'. Her comment is also an audacious attack on the Courts pernicious in its consequences, seriously affecting the administration of justice and the confidence of people in the justice delivery system," the bench held. 

While refusing to accept the 'apology' tendered by Srinandan, the judges opined, "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 defence 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."

Notably, the bench had on February 5, ordered the other members of the society's committee to 'apologise from the bottom of their heart and show remorse' after Srinandan, who was a member of the committee, circulated an objectionable letter against the judges and the judiciary, among the members of the society.

In a hearing conducted on March 4, the judges, after going through Srinandan's affidavit expressing her 'unconditional apology' had said that such a language (used in the letter she circulated) was not expected from a 'learned and educated' person.

"From where did she conceived that you (courts) are a dog mafia... These ideas are not something which comes from an educated person... May be a rustic villager who doesn't know anything have said this... That can be understood but not this. She's terming our orders as illegal orders and a personal allegation against us that these judges want to get their illegal orders be implemented..." Justice Kulkarni had remarked.

The judges had made it clear that they have 'limited' scope while hearing criminal contempt of court matters and that they were only concerned with the 'dignity of the institution.'

Appearance:

Senior Advocate Vikram Nankani along with Advocates Ativ Patel, Viloma Shah and Harshad Vyas instructed by AVP Partners appeared for Vineeta Srinandan.

Advocates Amjith Anandhan, Pranjal Agarwal, Dixita Gohil, Ujjawal Pratap, Rounak Burad and Sandhya Yadav appeared for the Seawoods Estate Society.

Advocate Sultana Sonawane, Satish Muley, Mosin Naik and Zhoaib Sayyed represented a Dog Feeder.

Advocates YS Bhate, Dhirendra Pratap Singh and AA Ansari represented the Union of India.

Advocates Ankit Ojha and RK Dubey represented Animal Welfare Board.

Government Pleader Neha Bhide along with Assistant Government Pleader Manish Pabale represented State. 

Advocate Manisha Shekhar Jagtap represented CIDCO.

Advocate Tejesh Dande represented NMMC. 

Case Title: High Court On Its Own Motion vs Vineeta Srinandan (SMCP 2 of 2025)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment