Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1408
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2267 OF 2025
VINEETA SRINANDAN ...APPELLANT(S)
VS.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT BOMBAY ON ITS OWN
MOTION. ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The power to punish necessarily 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. Therefore, 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. After all, it requires fortitude to
acknowledge contrition for one’s lapse, and an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2025.12.10
16:30:55 IST
Reason:
even greater virtue to extend forgiveness to the
erring. Mercy, therefore, must remain an integral
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 1 of 16
part of the judicial conscience, to be extended
where the contemnor sincerely acknowledges his
lapse and seeks to atone for it.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The present appeal is by appellant-contemnor
under Section 19(1)(b) of Contempt of Courts Act,
1 rd
1971 preferred against judgment dated 23 April,
2025, passed by the Division Bench of High Court
of Judicature at Bombay (“High Court”) in Suo
Motu Criminal Contempt Petition No. 2 of 2025,
whereby the appellant-contemnor was held guilty
of committing the offence of criminal contempt of
court punishable under Section 12 of Contempt
Act, sentenced her to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one week and
imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
3. Brief facts, germane to the controversy at hand,
are narrated hereinbelow: -
3.1. Appellant-contemnor is a former Director,
Cultural of Seawoods Estates Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as “Seawoods”). In an already pending
2
writ petition filed by Seawoods before the High
Court, laying challenge to the vires of Rule 20 of
the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, one Ms.
1
Hereinafter, “Contempt Act”.
2
Writ Petition No. 11652 of 2023.
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 2 of 16
Leela Verma had moved an intervention
3
application . She filed an affidavit stating that the
present appellant-contemnor had issued a
circular (hereinafter “contemptuous circular”)
th
dated 29 January, 2025. The relevant portions of
the said circular are as follows: -
“SEL/CLR/31 /6558/2025
29th Jan. 2025
How Democracy is being crushed by
Judicial System?
The entire country has a stray dog menace, and
most of the urban residential societies in class
A cities are struggling to fight this dog feeder's
mafia spread across the country. This is such
a huge well-established network of trained
professionals who have a very strong presence
in the Judicial system too.
So much so that if affected societies want to
show videos or photos of the dog attacks, show
information of fake cases filed by dog feeders,
or show videos showing training of feeders
where they are training their female members
to file fake molestation cases against people
who stop their illegal activities of feeding pack
of strays in areas close to houses of other
people, then Judges don’t want to see them and
completely avoid taking cognizance of such
material. In one case, where we had shown the
video of a Dog attack on a small girl in front of
building 11 to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court
made fun of it and outrightly rejected it by
saying that the dog wanted to play with that
girl.
Now we are convinced that there is a big Dog
mafia operating in the country, who has a list
3
Interim Application No. 10251 of 2024
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 3 of 16
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.
…
…
2. Despite the latest status being on record, the
Hon’ble Court insisted on implementing the
20th March 2023 order on us which is meant
for community animals (which are born inside)
and we do not have any community animals at
all. Still Justice wants to impose this illegal
order on us by using his power on the NMMC
officer and the police.
For, SEAWOODS Estates Limited
SD/-
Vineeta Srinandan
Director Cultural.”
th
3.2. The High Court, vide order dated 4 February,
2025, observed that the said circular was
contemptuous in nature and ordered that
appellant-contemnor be intimated the same. The
High Court wanted to ascertain whether the
statement made in the contemptuous circular was
passed in private capacity or were made on behalf
of the Board of Directors of the Seawoods.
th
3.3. On 7 February, 2025 the High Court directed
that show-cause notice be issued to the appellant-
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 4 of 16
contemnor against initiating criminal contempt
against her. Vide an affidavit submitted by
Seawoods before the High Court, it was clarified
that the Board of Directors had no knowledge of
the contemptuous circular issued by appellant-
contemnor, and its contents were never
discussed, approved or accepted by any Board
member.
th
3.4. Subsequently thereto, on 18 February, 2025 the
appellant-contemnor filed a reply affidavit stating,
inter alia , the reasons why contempt action must
not be initiated against her. She accepted that a
grave error was committed in the issuance of the
contemptuous circular, which was done by her
upon the mental pressure exerted by the
residents. She further stated that in repentance,
she had also resigned from the Board of Directors
of Seawoods.
3.5. The High Court numbered the suo motu
proceedings as Suo Motu Criminal Contempt
Petition No. 2 of 2025, and directed to pronounce
a separate order in that petition.
4. In the subject suo motu petition, the High Court
held that the contemptuous circular issued by the
appellant-contemnor satisfied the ingredients of
criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of Contempt
Act. By placing reliance on various precedents, the
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 5 of 16
High Court disposed of the suo motu petition
holding that the act of issuing the circular by
appellant-contemnor cannot be categorized as fair
criticism as the same was issued with an intent to
scandalize the Court. The High Court, therefore,
sentenced the appellant-contemnor to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one week with
a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
5. Aggrieved, the appellant-contemnor is before this
Court.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced on behalf of both the
parties and have gone through the material placed
on record.
7. The issue that arises for consideration is whether
the challenge preferred by the appellant–
contemnor to the judgment of the High Court is
sustainable in law, and further, whether the High
Court was justified in declining to accept her
apology and consequently refusing to remit the
sentence imposed.
7.1. In returning the finding of guilt qua the appellant-
contemnor, the High Court gave the following
reasons: -
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 6 of 16
i. that the act of publishing the contemptuous
circular by the appellant-contemnor satisfied the
ingredients of criminal contempt, inasmuch as it
scandalized and lowered the authority of the
Court.
ii. that the fact that the publication of
contemptuous circular was made by the
appellant-contemnor during the pendency of the
4
writ petition filed by Seawoods, it amounted to
causing an interference with the due course of
judicial proceedings and obstruction with the
administration of justice.
iii. that it is totally unbelievable that appellant-
contemnor while undertaking to write such
contumacious writing, was not conscious or was
unaware of the consequences of such writing.
iv. that the whole act of publishing the
contemptuous circular was done with the
intention to disrepute and tarnish the judicial
system.
v. that the decisions of this Court in Rajendra Sail
5
v. M.P. High Court Bar Association , and
decisions relied upon therein, i.e. Roshan Lal
6
Ahuja, In re , DC Saxena v. Hon’ble the Chief
7
Justice of India , and Perspective
4
Supra note 2.
5
(2005) 6 SCC 109.
6
1993 Supp (4) SCC 446.
7
(1996) 5 SCC 216.
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 7 of 16
8
Publications (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra ,
has held that a communication imputing
improper motives to the Court or its Judges
cannot be regarded as fair criticism of the
judiciary.
8. At the outset, while we are satisfied that the
contemptuous circular does satisfy the essential
ingredients of criminal contempt, we find
ourselves unable to concur with the reasoning
adopted by the High Court in invoking Section 12
of Contempt Act to impose punishment upon the
appellant-contemnor. Admittedly, pursuant to the
th
order dated 7 February, 2025, calling upon the
appellant-contemnor to show cause as to why
proceedings for criminal contempt be not
initiated, she filed a reply-affidavit. In the said
affidavit, the appellant-contemnor tendered an
unconditional and unqualified apology, which
stands duly recorded by the High Court.
8.1. However, the High Court declined to accept the
apology, observing that, on a holistic reading, the
affidavit did not reflect any genuine compunction
for the acts complained of. It concluded that the
apology was merely perfunctory, tendered for the
sake of formality, and that the expression of
8
AIR 1971 SC 221.
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 8 of 16
remorse appeared borrowed rather than borne out
of sincere repentance.
8.2. Section 12 of Contempt Act provides for
punishment for contempt of court. Relevant
portion of the said provision reads as follows: -
“12. Punishment for contempt of court. - (1)
Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act
or in any other law, a contempt of court may be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine
which may extend to two thousand rupees, or
with both:
Provided that the accused may be discharged
or the punishment awarded may be remitted on
apology being made to the satisfaction of the
Court.
Explanation.- An apology shall not be rejected
merely on the ground that it is qualified or
conditional if the accused makes it bona fide .
. . . ”
8.3. Although Section 12 of the Contempt Act bears the
marginal note “punishment for contempt of
court”, a holistic reading of the provision indicates
that it contemplates not merely the imposition of
punishment but also the power to remit the same.
The proviso and the Explanation to Section 12
recognise that where the contemnor expresses
genuine remorse and tenders an apology to the
satisfaction of the Court, he may be discharged, or
the sentence awarded may be remitted. Even after
a finding of guilt and the imposition of
punishment, the Court retains the discretion to
exercise such power. The statutory scheme is thus
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 9 of 16
clear, once repentance is demonstrated, the Court
may act with magnanimity. However, the apology
must be bona fide and must satisfy the judicial
conscience of the Court, which is required to
exercise this discretion judiciously.
8.4. The Explanation to Section 12 further provides
that an apology shall not be rejected merely
because it is qualified or conditional, if offered
bona fide . The scheme of Section 12(1) thus
reflects a balance, i.e. while the majesty of law
must be preserved against attempts to malign the
institution and those discharging judicial
functions, the provision also recognises human
fallibility. It is for this reason that the proviso
empowers the Court, upon being satisfied of
genuine remorse, to accept the apology and
discharge the contemnor or remit the punishment
awarded.
9. The second ground on which the judgment of the
High Court cannot be sustained is the erroneous
reliance placed on the decisions referred to above.
This Court has consistently held that the ratio
decidendi of a judgment must be understood in
the context of its facts and the issue decided
therein. Only where the factual matrix is
materially similar can the ratio in an earlier
decision be applied. In this regard, reference may
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 10 of 16
be made to the decision of a three-Judge Bench of
this Court in Royal Medical Trust v. Union of
9
India , the relevant extract of which is set out
hereinbelow: -
“28. It is well settled in law that the ratio of a
decision has to be understood regard being had
to its context and factual exposition . The
ratiocination in an authority is basically founded
on the interpretation of the statutory provision. If
it is based on a particular fact or the decision of
the Court is guided by specific nature of the
case, it will not amount to the ratio of the
judgment . ”
( emphasis supplied )
9.1. Further, another three-Judge bench of this Court
in Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi , (1996) 6
SCC 44, held that: -
“9. . . . It is not everything said by a Judge while
giving judgment that constitutes a precedent.
The only thing in a Judge’s decision binding a
party is the principle upon which the case is
decided and for this reason it is important to
analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio
decidendi . . .. A decision is only an authority for
what it actually decides. What is of the essence in
a decision is its ratio and not every observation
found therein nor what logically follows from
the various observations made in the judgment.
Every judgment must be read as applicable to
the particular facts proved, or assumed to be
proved, since the generality of the expressions
which may be found there is not intended to be
exposition of the whole law, but governed and
qualified by the particular facts of the case in
which such expressions are to be found. It
would, therefore, be not profitable to extract a
sentence here and there from the judgment and
to build upon it because the essence of the
decision is its ratio and not every observation
9
(2017) 16 SCC 605
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 11 of 16
found therein . The enunciation of the reason or
principle on which a question before a court has
been decided is alone binding as a precedent. The
concrete decision alone is binding between the
parties to it, but it is the abstract ratio
decidendi , ascertained on a consideration of
the judgment in relation to the subject-matter
of the decision, which alone has the force of law
and which, when it is clear what it was, is
binding . It is only the principle laid down in the
judgment that is binding law under Article 141 of
the Constitution. A deliberate judicial decision
arrived at after hearing an argument on a question
which arises in the case or is put in issue may
constitute a precedent, no matter for what reason,
and the precedent by long recognition may mature
into rule of stare decisis . It is the rule deductible
from the application of law to the facts and
circumstances of the case which constitutes
its ratio decidendi. ”
(emphasis supplied)
Therefore, it is a settled position that where
a decision turns upon its own facts or is guided by
the peculiarities of a particular case, it does not
constitute the ratio of the judgment. In
Dhanwanti Devi ( supra ), this Court cautioned
that it is neither profitable nor permissible to rely
upon isolated lines from a judgment, for the
binding element lies in the ratio decidendi and not
in every observation contained therein.
9.2. In the present case, the High Court placed reliance
on the decisions referred to earlier and concluded
that the appellant-contemnor’s act of issuing the
contemptuous circular could not be regarded as
fair criticism, and that the statements therein
were calculated to ascribe improper motives to the
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 12 of 16
Court and its Judges. Proceeding on this basis,
the High Court sentenced the appellant-
contemnor to simple imprisonment for a period of
one week and imposed a fine of ₹ 2,000/-.
9.3. In our considered view, the reliance placed by the
High Court on the decisions of this Court stands
misplaced. The distinguishing features of those
cases were not duly appreciated. In Dr. D.C.
Saxena ( supra ) and Perspective Publications (P)
Ltd. ( supra ), the contemnors had not offered any
apology. In Roshan Lal Ahuja ( supra ), the
apology initially tendered was later withdrawn. In
Rajendra Sail ( supra ), though an unconditional
apology was offered, this Court declined to accept
it in view of the gravity of the allegations, which
included imputations made in a public rally that
a sitting Judge had been bribed and possessed
assets disproportionate to income. The factual
matrix of the present case is materially distinct,
and therefore, the precedents relied upon could
not have been applied as a basis to record the
conviction or justify the sentence imposed upon
the appellant-contemnor.
9.4. In the present case, the appellant-contemnor
promptly entered appearance and filed her reply-
affidavit pursuant to the show-cause notice issued
th
by the High Court on 7 February, 2025. In the
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 13 of 16
said affidavit, she explained the circumstances
leading to the issuance of the contemptuous
circular and expressed unconditional remorse for
her conduct, tendering an unqualified apology at
the earliest opportunity.
9.5. While an act may amount to contempt, the proviso
to Section 12 of the Contempt Act empowers the
Court to discharge the contemnor or remit the
punishment awarded. The only requirement for
exercising such power is that the apology must be
genuine and acceptable to the Court. The
Explanation to Section 12 further clarifies that an
apology shall not be rejected merely because it is
qualified or conditional, if it is made bona fide . The
statutory scheme, therefore, 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.
9.6. Therefore, in our considered view, the 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
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 14 of 16
whether such apology satisfied the statutory
parameters under Section 12 of the Contempt Act.
Thus, in our opinion, in the absence of any
material suggesting that the apology was lacking
in b ona fides , the High Court ought to have
considered remitting the sentence in accordance
with law.
10. In light of the foregoing discussion, we summarise
our conclusions as under: -
i. The reliance placed by the High Court on the
decisions of this Court in Dr. DC Saxena ( supra ),
Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. ( supra ),
Roshan Lal Ahuja, In re ( supra ), and Rajendra
Sail ( supra ) is misplaced, as the material facts in
those cases are clearly distinguishable from the
facts of the present matter.
ii. Considering that the appellant-contemnor has,
from the very outset, expressed genuine remorse
and repentance for issuing the contemptuous
circular, we are satisfied that the ends of justice
would be met by remitting the sentence imposed
by the High Court.
rd
11. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 23
April, 2025, passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Suo Motu Criminal
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 15 of 16
Contempt Petition No. 2 of 2025 is hereby set
aside to the aforesaid extent.
12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.
……………………………J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
……………………………J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 10, 2025
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 16 of 16
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2267 OF 2025
VINEETA SRINANDAN ...APPELLANT(S)
VS.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT BOMBAY ON ITS OWN
MOTION. ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The power to punish necessarily 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. Therefore, 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. After all, it requires fortitude to
acknowledge contrition for one’s lapse, and an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2025.12.10
16:30:55 IST
Reason:
even greater virtue to extend forgiveness to the
erring. Mercy, therefore, must remain an integral
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 1 of 16
part of the judicial conscience, to be extended
where the contemnor sincerely acknowledges his
lapse and seeks to atone for it.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The present appeal is by appellant-contemnor
under Section 19(1)(b) of Contempt of Courts Act,
1 rd
1971 preferred against judgment dated 23 April,
2025, passed by the Division Bench of High Court
of Judicature at Bombay (“High Court”) in Suo
Motu Criminal Contempt Petition No. 2 of 2025,
whereby the appellant-contemnor was held guilty
of committing the offence of criminal contempt of
court punishable under Section 12 of Contempt
Act, sentenced her to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one week and
imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
3. Brief facts, germane to the controversy at hand,
are narrated hereinbelow: -
3.1. Appellant-contemnor is a former Director,
Cultural of Seawoods Estates Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as “Seawoods”). In an already pending
2
writ petition filed by Seawoods before the High
Court, laying challenge to the vires of Rule 20 of
the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, one Ms.
1
Hereinafter, “Contempt Act”.
2
Writ Petition No. 11652 of 2023.
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 2 of 16
Leela Verma had moved an intervention
3
application . She filed an affidavit stating that the
present appellant-contemnor had issued a
circular (hereinafter “contemptuous circular”)
th
dated 29 January, 2025. The relevant portions of
the said circular are as follows: -
“SEL/CLR/31 /6558/2025
29th Jan. 2025
How Democracy is being crushed by
Judicial System?
The entire country has a stray dog menace, and
most of the urban residential societies in class
A cities are struggling to fight this dog feeder's
mafia spread across the country. This is such
a huge well-established network of trained
professionals who have a very strong presence
in the Judicial system too.
So much so that if affected societies want to
show videos or photos of the dog attacks, show
information of fake cases filed by dog feeders,
or show videos showing training of feeders
where they are training their female members
to file fake molestation cases against people
who stop their illegal activities of feeding pack
of strays in areas close to houses of other
people, then Judges don’t want to see them and
completely avoid taking cognizance of such
material. In one case, where we had shown the
video of a Dog attack on a small girl in front of
building 11 to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court
made fun of it and outrightly rejected it by
saying that the dog wanted to play with that
girl.
Now we are convinced that there is a big Dog
mafia operating in the country, who has a list
3
Interim Application No. 10251 of 2024
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 3 of 16
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.
…
…
2. Despite the latest status being on record, the
Hon’ble Court insisted on implementing the
20th March 2023 order on us which is meant
for community animals (which are born inside)
and we do not have any community animals at
all. Still Justice wants to impose this illegal
order on us by using his power on the NMMC
officer and the police.
For, SEAWOODS Estates Limited
SD/-
Vineeta Srinandan
Director Cultural.”
th
3.2. The High Court, vide order dated 4 February,
2025, observed that the said circular was
contemptuous in nature and ordered that
appellant-contemnor be intimated the same. The
High Court wanted to ascertain whether the
statement made in the contemptuous circular was
passed in private capacity or were made on behalf
of the Board of Directors of the Seawoods.
th
3.3. On 7 February, 2025 the High Court directed
that show-cause notice be issued to the appellant-
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 4 of 16
contemnor against initiating criminal contempt
against her. Vide an affidavit submitted by
Seawoods before the High Court, it was clarified
that the Board of Directors had no knowledge of
the contemptuous circular issued by appellant-
contemnor, and its contents were never
discussed, approved or accepted by any Board
member.
th
3.4. Subsequently thereto, on 18 February, 2025 the
appellant-contemnor filed a reply affidavit stating,
inter alia , the reasons why contempt action must
not be initiated against her. She accepted that a
grave error was committed in the issuance of the
contemptuous circular, which was done by her
upon the mental pressure exerted by the
residents. She further stated that in repentance,
she had also resigned from the Board of Directors
of Seawoods.
3.5. The High Court numbered the suo motu
proceedings as Suo Motu Criminal Contempt
Petition No. 2 of 2025, and directed to pronounce
a separate order in that petition.
4. In the subject suo motu petition, the High Court
held that the contemptuous circular issued by the
appellant-contemnor satisfied the ingredients of
criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of Contempt
Act. By placing reliance on various precedents, the
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 5 of 16
High Court disposed of the suo motu petition
holding that the act of issuing the circular by
appellant-contemnor cannot be categorized as fair
criticism as the same was issued with an intent to
scandalize the Court. The High Court, therefore,
sentenced the appellant-contemnor to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one week with
a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
5. Aggrieved, the appellant-contemnor is before this
Court.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced on behalf of both the
parties and have gone through the material placed
on record.
7. The issue that arises for consideration is whether
the challenge preferred by the appellant–
contemnor to the judgment of the High Court is
sustainable in law, and further, whether the High
Court was justified in declining to accept her
apology and consequently refusing to remit the
sentence imposed.
7.1. In returning the finding of guilt qua the appellant-
contemnor, the High Court gave the following
reasons: -
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 6 of 16
i. that the act of publishing the contemptuous
circular by the appellant-contemnor satisfied the
ingredients of criminal contempt, inasmuch as it
scandalized and lowered the authority of the
Court.
ii. that the fact that the publication of
contemptuous circular was made by the
appellant-contemnor during the pendency of the
4
writ petition filed by Seawoods, it amounted to
causing an interference with the due course of
judicial proceedings and obstruction with the
administration of justice.
iii. that it is totally unbelievable that appellant-
contemnor while undertaking to write such
contumacious writing, was not conscious or was
unaware of the consequences of such writing.
iv. that the whole act of publishing the
contemptuous circular was done with the
intention to disrepute and tarnish the judicial
system.
v. that the decisions of this Court in Rajendra Sail
5
v. M.P. High Court Bar Association , and
decisions relied upon therein, i.e. Roshan Lal
6
Ahuja, In re , DC Saxena v. Hon’ble the Chief
7
Justice of India , and Perspective
4
Supra note 2.
5
(2005) 6 SCC 109.
6
1993 Supp (4) SCC 446.
7
(1996) 5 SCC 216.
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 7 of 16
8
Publications (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra ,
has held that a communication imputing
improper motives to the Court or its Judges
cannot be regarded as fair criticism of the
judiciary.
8. At the outset, while we are satisfied that the
contemptuous circular does satisfy the essential
ingredients of criminal contempt, we find
ourselves unable to concur with the reasoning
adopted by the High Court in invoking Section 12
of Contempt Act to impose punishment upon the
appellant-contemnor. Admittedly, pursuant to the
th
order dated 7 February, 2025, calling upon the
appellant-contemnor to show cause as to why
proceedings for criminal contempt be not
initiated, she filed a reply-affidavit. In the said
affidavit, the appellant-contemnor tendered an
unconditional and unqualified apology, which
stands duly recorded by the High Court.
8.1. However, the High Court declined to accept the
apology, observing that, on a holistic reading, the
affidavit did not reflect any genuine compunction
for the acts complained of. It concluded that the
apology was merely perfunctory, tendered for the
sake of formality, and that the expression of
8
AIR 1971 SC 221.
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 8 of 16
remorse appeared borrowed rather than borne out
of sincere repentance.
8.2. Section 12 of Contempt Act provides for
punishment for contempt of court. Relevant
portion of the said provision reads as follows: -
“12. Punishment for contempt of court. - (1)
Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act
or in any other law, a contempt of court may be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine
which may extend to two thousand rupees, or
with both:
Provided that the accused may be discharged
or the punishment awarded may be remitted on
apology being made to the satisfaction of the
Court.
Explanation.- An apology shall not be rejected
merely on the ground that it is qualified or
conditional if the accused makes it bona fide .
. . . ”
8.3. Although Section 12 of the Contempt Act bears the
marginal note “punishment for contempt of
court”, a holistic reading of the provision indicates
that it contemplates not merely the imposition of
punishment but also the power to remit the same.
The proviso and the Explanation to Section 12
recognise that where the contemnor expresses
genuine remorse and tenders an apology to the
satisfaction of the Court, he may be discharged, or
the sentence awarded may be remitted. Even after
a finding of guilt and the imposition of
punishment, the Court retains the discretion to
exercise such power. The statutory scheme is thus
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 9 of 16
clear, once repentance is demonstrated, the Court
may act with magnanimity. However, the apology
must be bona fide and must satisfy the judicial
conscience of the Court, which is required to
exercise this discretion judiciously.
8.4. The Explanation to Section 12 further provides
that an apology shall not be rejected merely
because it is qualified or conditional, if offered
bona fide . The scheme of Section 12(1) thus
reflects a balance, i.e. while the majesty of law
must be preserved against attempts to malign the
institution and those discharging judicial
functions, the provision also recognises human
fallibility. It is for this reason that the proviso
empowers the Court, upon being satisfied of
genuine remorse, to accept the apology and
discharge the contemnor or remit the punishment
awarded.
9. The second ground on which the judgment of the
High Court cannot be sustained is the erroneous
reliance placed on the decisions referred to above.
This Court has consistently held that the ratio
decidendi of a judgment must be understood in
the context of its facts and the issue decided
therein. Only where the factual matrix is
materially similar can the ratio in an earlier
decision be applied. In this regard, reference may
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 10 of 16
be made to the decision of a three-Judge Bench of
this Court in Royal Medical Trust v. Union of
9
India , the relevant extract of which is set out
hereinbelow: -
“28. It is well settled in law that the ratio of a
decision has to be understood regard being had
to its context and factual exposition . The
ratiocination in an authority is basically founded
on the interpretation of the statutory provision. If
it is based on a particular fact or the decision of
the Court is guided by specific nature of the
case, it will not amount to the ratio of the
judgment . ”
( emphasis supplied )
9.1. Further, another three-Judge bench of this Court
in Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi , (1996) 6
SCC 44, held that: -
“9. . . . It is not everything said by a Judge while
giving judgment that constitutes a precedent.
The only thing in a Judge’s decision binding a
party is the principle upon which the case is
decided and for this reason it is important to
analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio
decidendi . . .. A decision is only an authority for
what it actually decides. What is of the essence in
a decision is its ratio and not every observation
found therein nor what logically follows from
the various observations made in the judgment.
Every judgment must be read as applicable to
the particular facts proved, or assumed to be
proved, since the generality of the expressions
which may be found there is not intended to be
exposition of the whole law, but governed and
qualified by the particular facts of the case in
which such expressions are to be found. It
would, therefore, be not profitable to extract a
sentence here and there from the judgment and
to build upon it because the essence of the
decision is its ratio and not every observation
9
(2017) 16 SCC 605
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 11 of 16
found therein . The enunciation of the reason or
principle on which a question before a court has
been decided is alone binding as a precedent. The
concrete decision alone is binding between the
parties to it, but it is the abstract ratio
decidendi , ascertained on a consideration of
the judgment in relation to the subject-matter
of the decision, which alone has the force of law
and which, when it is clear what it was, is
binding . It is only the principle laid down in the
judgment that is binding law under Article 141 of
the Constitution. A deliberate judicial decision
arrived at after hearing an argument on a question
which arises in the case or is put in issue may
constitute a precedent, no matter for what reason,
and the precedent by long recognition may mature
into rule of stare decisis . It is the rule deductible
from the application of law to the facts and
circumstances of the case which constitutes
its ratio decidendi. ”
(emphasis supplied)
Therefore, it is a settled position that where
a decision turns upon its own facts or is guided by
the peculiarities of a particular case, it does not
constitute the ratio of the judgment. In
Dhanwanti Devi ( supra ), this Court cautioned
that it is neither profitable nor permissible to rely
upon isolated lines from a judgment, for the
binding element lies in the ratio decidendi and not
in every observation contained therein.
9.2. In the present case, the High Court placed reliance
on the decisions referred to earlier and concluded
that the appellant-contemnor’s act of issuing the
contemptuous circular could not be regarded as
fair criticism, and that the statements therein
were calculated to ascribe improper motives to the
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 12 of 16
Court and its Judges. Proceeding on this basis,
the High Court sentenced the appellant-
contemnor to simple imprisonment for a period of
one week and imposed a fine of ₹ 2,000/-.
9.3. In our considered view, the reliance placed by the
High Court on the decisions of this Court stands
misplaced. The distinguishing features of those
cases were not duly appreciated. In Dr. D.C.
Saxena ( supra ) and Perspective Publications (P)
Ltd. ( supra ), the contemnors had not offered any
apology. In Roshan Lal Ahuja ( supra ), the
apology initially tendered was later withdrawn. In
Rajendra Sail ( supra ), though an unconditional
apology was offered, this Court declined to accept
it in view of the gravity of the allegations, which
included imputations made in a public rally that
a sitting Judge had been bribed and possessed
assets disproportionate to income. The factual
matrix of the present case is materially distinct,
and therefore, the precedents relied upon could
not have been applied as a basis to record the
conviction or justify the sentence imposed upon
the appellant-contemnor.
9.4. In the present case, the appellant-contemnor
promptly entered appearance and filed her reply-
affidavit pursuant to the show-cause notice issued
th
by the High Court on 7 February, 2025. In the
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 13 of 16
said affidavit, she explained the circumstances
leading to the issuance of the contemptuous
circular and expressed unconditional remorse for
her conduct, tendering an unqualified apology at
the earliest opportunity.
9.5. While an act may amount to contempt, the proviso
to Section 12 of the Contempt Act empowers the
Court to discharge the contemnor or remit the
punishment awarded. The only requirement for
exercising such power is that the apology must be
genuine and acceptable to the Court. The
Explanation to Section 12 further clarifies that an
apology shall not be rejected merely because it is
qualified or conditional, if it is made bona fide . The
statutory scheme, therefore, 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.
9.6. Therefore, in our considered view, the 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
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 14 of 16
whether such apology satisfied the statutory
parameters under Section 12 of the Contempt Act.
Thus, in our opinion, in the absence of any
material suggesting that the apology was lacking
in b ona fides , the High Court ought to have
considered remitting the sentence in accordance
with law.
10. In light of the foregoing discussion, we summarise
our conclusions as under: -
i. The reliance placed by the High Court on the
decisions of this Court in Dr. DC Saxena ( supra ),
Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. ( supra ),
Roshan Lal Ahuja, In re ( supra ), and Rajendra
Sail ( supra ) is misplaced, as the material facts in
those cases are clearly distinguishable from the
facts of the present matter.
ii. Considering that the appellant-contemnor has,
from the very outset, expressed genuine remorse
and repentance for issuing the contemptuous
circular, we are satisfied that the ends of justice
would be met by remitting the sentence imposed
by the High Court.
rd
11. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 23
April, 2025, passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Suo Motu Criminal
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 15 of 16
Contempt Petition No. 2 of 2025 is hereby set
aside to the aforesaid extent.
12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.
……………………………J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
……………………………J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 10, 2025
Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 Page 16 of 16