Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s.12 – Scheme of – One Seawoods Estates Ltd. challenged the vires of r.20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 before the High Court – Intervention application filed therein that the appellantcontemnor, a former Director, Cultural thereof had issued a circular as regards the stray dog menace inter alia stating “The entire country has a stray dog menace, and most of the urban residential societies..are struggling to fight this dog feeder’s mafia….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.…” – High Court in Suo Motu Criminal Contempt Petition held the appellant-contemnor guilty of committing the offence of criminal contempt of court punishable u/s.12, Contempt Act and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for one week and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- – Challenge to:
Held: Though, the contemptuous circular does satisfy the essential ingredients of criminal contempt, the reasoning adopted by the High Court in invoking s.12 to impose punishment upon the appellant-contemnor not concurred with – The statutory scheme recognises that once a contemnor expresses sincere remorse, even if the apology is not unqualified in form, the Court is competent to accept it and, where necessary, discharge the contemnor or remit the sentence imposed – On facts, High Court failed to exercise its contempt jurisdiction with due circumspection – 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 u/s.12 – 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 - Impugned judgment set aside – Sentence imposed, remitted. [Paras 8, 9.5-11] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s.12 – Interpretation – Scheme of. [Paras 8.2-8.4, 9.5]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Power under – Exercise of: Held: Power to punish carries within it the concomitant power to forgive, where the individual before the Court demonstrates genuine remorse and repentance for the act that has brought him to this position – In exercise of contempt jurisdiction, Courts must remain conscious that this power is not a personal armour for Judges, nor a sword to silence criticism – Mercy must remain an integral part of the judicial conscience, to be extended where the contemnor sincerely acknowledges his lapse and seeks to atone for it. [Para 1]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.