Overview
- Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the one-week simple imprisonment imposed on Vineeta Srinandan.
- The bench said contempt power is neither a personal armour for judges nor a sword to silence criticism, emphasizing mercy when remorse is bona fide.
- The Court held that the circular could satisfy criminal contempt ingredients but said the High Court failed to act with due circumspection.
- The impugned circular was issued during a Seawoods Estates dispute tied to Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, after an order safeguarding a domestic help who fed stray dogs.
- The Supreme Court accepted her prompt, unqualified apology under Section 12 and found the High Court’s reliance on earlier precedents to be misplaced.