Observing that the power to punish for criminal contempt is not a “personal armour” for judges to stifle criticism, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 10, 2025) set aside an April 23 order of the Bombay High Court that had held a Navi Mumbai woman guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced her to one week’s simple imprisonment for circulating a housing society notice referring to judges as part of a “dog mafia.”
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted that the woman had expressed unconditional remorse at the earliest stage and had tendered an unqualified apology for her conduct.
“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 even greater virtue to extend forgiveness to the erring. Mercy, therefore, 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”, the ruling said.
What constitutes as contempt of court in India? | Explained
The judges further observed that a holistic reading of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (1971 Act), makes it clear that the provision not only authorises the imposition of punishment but also expressly preserves the court’s power to remit it. This discretion, the Bench underscored, survives even after a finding of guilt and the award of punishment.
