New Delhi: Emphasising that it does not expect an educated person to disparage the judiciary, the Bombay High Court sentenced a woman to one-week imprisonment for issuing a circular accusing judges of the high court as well as the Supreme Court of being part of a “big dog mafia operating in the country”.
Taking suo motu cognisance of the circular, issued by Mumbai’s Seawoods Estates Limited cultural director Vineeta Srinandan in January, the high court said the remarks intended to obstruct the administration of justice, and the due course of judicial proceedings.
The circular, the court noted, was issued during the pendency of an ongoing case before the Bombay High Court, where residents of Seawoods were embroiled in legal proceedings over the feeding stray dogs, challenging the validity of Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023. The rule mandates resident welfare associations (RWAs) or apartment owner associations (AOAs) to make arrangements for feeding stray animals on their premises. At least 1,500 people live at the housing society in Navi Mumbai.
The circular contained some “serious insinuations” against the high court and Supreme Court judges, the court noted in its order.
A bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna rejected Srinandan’s argument that she was not conscious or aware of the consequences of making such remarks and issuing the circular.
“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 court said during the sentencing Wednesday. It also imposed a Rs 2,000 fine on Srinandan.
The bench rejected her apology for issuing the circular, saying, “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.” It said such remarks were not expected from educated people.
However, the court suspended the one-week sentence for 10 days, giving Srinandan time to challenge the order in the Supreme Court.
Also Read: As animal rescuers slam Delhi CM’s stray dog relocation directive, a look at issue from a legal lens
A look at the case
On 29 January, Srinandan issued the circular saying there was a stray dog issue in the country and that most urban residential societies in Tier 1 cities were struggling to fight “this dog feeder’s mafia”.
“This is such a huge well-established network of trained professionals who have a very strong presence in the Judicial system too,” the circular read.
The circular went on to add that in one particular case, Seawoods Estates Limited vs. Union of India (2023), when the court was shown a video of a dog attack on a small girl in front of a building, the Bombay High Court “made fun of it” and said that the dog wanted to play. In the case, the high court was considering the issue of feeding the dogs in the Seawood apartment complex’s premises while noting that there was nothing illegal in doing so.
“Now we are convinced that there is a big dog mafia operating in the country, who has a list of High Court and Supreme Court judges having views similar to the dog feeders. No matter how many people are dying or attacked in the country every year but most of the high court/Supreme Court orders will defend dog feeders ignoring the value of human life,” the circular added.
Finally, the circular lamented the implementation of a 20 March 2023 order by the Bombay High Court with regards to community animals born inside the residential premises.
Why the court found the circular contemptuous
In its 21-page ruling, the Bombay High Court Wednesday said, “We have no manner of doubt that in the publication/circular as issued by the contemnor, being the material in writing, fully satisfies the ingredients of what would amount to criminal contempt of Court as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.”
Under the law, such contemptuous material, which refers to the publication of any matter or an act that scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court, can take the form of written or spoken words. It can even occur in the form of signs, visible representation or even otherwise.
The bench added that such conduct cannot escape punishment, which is a consequence of the “severe contumacious acts of making scurrilous and scandalising remarks” against the courts and judges.
It also added that although Section 12 of the 1971 Act entails a punishment of up to 6 months or a fine up to Rs 2,000, or both, for the offence, it had imposed a relatively short sentence on Srinandan.
Earlier, on 4 February too, the court also passed an order revealing its intention to initiate contempt proceedings against Srinandan.
“We would have intended to immediately commence criminal contempt proceedings as the law would mandate against Mrs. Vineeta Srinandan, considering the impurity and tenor of her writings, however, as we are informed that she is at present out of India in Abu Dhabi, we are unable to proceed against her,” the court said at the time.
The same day the court had also sought a response from the Seawoods Society Board, to ascertain whether this circular was jointly issued with the “collective intent” or just by Srinandan. In its reply, Seawoods had said the board of directors had no knowledge of such a circular being issued by Srinandan.
“It is stated that such action of Mrs. Veenita Srinandan was a case of poor, reckless, ill-considered, unintended, impulsive and mistaken choice of words, which the Board of Directors and the deponent wholeheartedly regret having deepest shame to such action,” the board said.
(Edited by Sanya Mathur)
Also Read: Stray dogs don’t ‘charge to kill’, ‘plot to poop’. So-called menace is a human-made problem
Oh milords are so aggrieved. Where is freedom of expression now?
Justices Kulkarni and Sethna are quite famous for being clowns. Their idiocy and obtuseness gets reflected time and again in their verdicts.
Ms. Vineeta Srinandan is absolutely correct in her assertions. The circular issued by her spoke the truth and hence was unacceptable to these “learned” judges.