MERCY TEMPERED WITH AUTHORITY: RE-EXAMINING APOLOGY AND PUNISHMENT IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

INTRODUCTION
In Vineeta Srinandan v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay (On Its Own Motion), Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025, reported as 2025 INSC 1408, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment on 10 December 2025. The case was decided by a Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
The Judgment revisits the philosophy underlying the law of contempt, particularly the balance between preserving the majesty of courts and recognising genuine remorse on the part of a contemnor. While affirming that scandalising remarks against courts may amount to criminal contempt, the Court underscored that punishment is not inevitable where sincere repentance is demonstrated.

BRIEF FACTS
The Appellant, Ms. Vineeta Srinandan, was a former Director (Cultural) of Seawoods Estates Ltd. During the pendency of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court concerning the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, she issued a circular containing serious allegations against the judiciary, alleging bias, misuse of power and collusion with interest groups.
The Bombay High Court took suo motu cognisance of the circular and initiated criminal contempt proceedings. Although the Appellant filed a reply affidavit tendering an unconditional apology and resigned from her position, the High Court declined to accept the apology. Holding that the circular scandalised the judiciary and interfered with the administration of justice, the High Court convicted her of criminal contempt and sentenced her to one week’s simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,000.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court under Section 19(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

ISSUES OF LAW
The Supreme Court was called upon to consider the following key issues:
1) Whether the statements made in the circular amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
2) Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to accept the appellant’s unconditional apology.
3) Whether punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act was mandatory despite genuine remorse being expressed.
4) Whether prior precedents on criminal contempt were correctly applied by the High Court to the facts of the case.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
At the outset, the Supreme Court concurred with the High Court’s finding that the contents of the circular did satisfy the ingredients of criminal contempt, as they tended to scandalise the court and lower public confidence in the judicial system. The Court made it clear that such sweeping and imputative allegations cannot be protected as fair criticism.
However, the Court found fault with the High Court’s approach at the stage of sentencing. A detailed analysis of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act revealed that the provision does not merely contemplate punishment but also embeds within it the power to remit or discharge upon acceptance of a bona fide apology. The proviso and the Explanation to Section 12 recognise human fallibility and emphasise that an apology should not be rejected merely because it is qualified or conditional, so long as it is genuine.
The Supreme Court observed that the Appellant had tendered an unconditional apology at the earliest opportunity and had expressed remorse consistently. There was no material on record to suggest that the apology lacked bona fides or was merely tactical. In such circumstances, the High Court was expected to exercise its discretion with circumspection rather than adopting a purely punitive stance.
Equally important was the Supreme Court’s clarification on the use of precedents. The Court held that the High Court erred in mechanically relying on earlier decisions where apologies were either absent, withdrawn or rejected due to extreme gravity of allegations. The Supreme Court reiterated that precedents must be applied in light of their factual context, and the ratio decidendi cannot be transplanted without appreciating material distinctions.
By emphasising that contempt jurisdiction is not meant to function as a tool of retribution, the Court reaffirmed that mercy and magnanimity form an intrinsic part of the judicial conscience when genuine repentance is shown.

CONCLUSION
The decision in Vineeta Srinandan v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay marks an important reaffirmation of the humane dimension of contempt jurisprudence. While the Supreme Court did not dilute the seriousness of scandalising the judiciary, it firmly held that punishment is not an automatic consequence once contempt is established.
By setting aside the sentence and accepting the Appellant’s apology, the Court reinforced the principle that the authority of courts is strengthened, not weakened, when justice is tempered with mercy. The Judgment serves as a reminder that contempt jurisdiction exists to uphold the dignity of the institution, not to silence remorseful individuals who acknowledge their lapse and seek redemption.

SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Rights of Husband in False Matrimonial Cases | 498A Misuse | 2025 Judgments Explained|” can be viewed at the link below: