The Supreme Court recently modified a contempt-of-court conviction imposed by the Bombay High Court on a woman who had been sentenced to one week of simple imprisonment for using the term “dog mafia” while referring to judges. The case arose from a dispute within a housing society regarding stray-dog feeding. During the conflict, the woman circulated a letter in which she levelled allegations against residents involved in feeding stray dogs and extended those accusations to members of the higher judiciary, claiming that judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts were part of what she described as a “dog feeders’ mafia”.
The Bombay High Court treated the contents of the letter as contemptuous, holding that such remarks scandalised the judiciary and undermined public confidence in the administration of justice. The High Court found her apology to be insincere and imposed a sentence of one week’s simple imprisonment along with a fine. It concluded that the statements were made intentionally and were capable of lowering the authority of the courts in the eyes of the public.
When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta carefully examined her conduct and the nature of the remarks. The Court acknowledged that the statements made by her were improper and unacceptable. However, it also noted that she had shown genuine remorse from the beginning of the proceedings and expressed regret for her actions. Observing this, the bench held that the punishment imposed by the High Court was excessively harsh, particularly in light of her consistent expression of regret.
The Supreme Court therefore set aside the portion of the High Court’s order that directed her to undergo one week of simple imprisonment. While the conviction for contempt remained intact, the custodial sentence was removed, effectively converting the sentence into a non-custodial penalty limited to the fine already imposed. The Court also noted that the reliance placed by the High Court on certain legal precedents was not appropriate for the facts of the case.
In delivering its decision, the Supreme Court emphasised that although the judiciary must be protected from scurrilous allegations that may erode public confidence, the punishment for contempt must remain proportionate and just. The Court held that where a contemnor demonstrates sincere remorse and the circumstances do not warrant imprisonment, a custodial sentence should not be imposed. Through this judgment, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that safeguarding the dignity of the judiciary must be balanced with the need to ensure that contempt penalties do not become unduly punitive.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.