Bombay High Court sentences woman to 1 week in jail for accusing judges of being part of 'dog mafia'

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday sentenced a woman to one week in jail after she circulated a notice accusing High Court and Supreme Court judges of being part of a “dog mafia.” [High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Vineeta Srinandan].A bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Advait M Sethna ruled:“We are of the clear opinion that the contemnor is guilty of having committed criminal contempt of Court and accordingly, deserves maximum punishment to be awarded. The iron hands of law apply equally irrespective of the category of the contemnors. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we intend to impose a lesser punishment.” The Court also imposed a fine of ₹2,000..The case began with a petition filed by Seawoods Estates Limited, a housing society in Navi Mumbai, challenging a rule in the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 related to the management of stray dogs. During the hearing, Leela Verma, a resident of the same society, asked to be involved in the case, claiming that the housing society’s actions were affecting her basic rights. In support of her intervention, she submitted an affidavit that included a circular written by Vineeta Srinandan, the society’s cultural director at the time.That circular, dated January 29, 2025, was distributed among the 1,500 families living in the complex. It alleged that urban areas across India were being targeted by a so-called “dog feeders’ mafia,” which supposedly had judges among the sympathisers. It claimed that judges ignored evidence of dog attacks and dismissed complaints by residents. One paragraph read, “Now we are convinced that 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. 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.”.Following this, the Court issued a show cause notice for contempt to Srinandan and Seawoods Estates.In response to the Court’s notice, Seawoods Estates filed an affidavit through one of its directors, saying the circular had never been approved or even discussed by the board and did not reflect the society’s views. The board apologised and distanced itself from Srinandan’s actions, calling her words “reckless”. The Court accepted the apology and dropped proceedings against the society.Srinandan also filed an affidavit claiming that she acted under pressure from other residents and had not intended to undermine the courts. .She said she regretted her words and had since resigned from her post. But the Court said her apology lacked sincerity, describing it as a “whitewash” and “a routine mantra of ‘sorry’.”"We do not accept any apology, which does not show any contrition or any genuine remorse. Such apology in our opinion, is merely a weapon in defence with an impression that the contemnor can get away by such recitals. Thus, such conduct of the contemnor cannot escape punishment, being a consequence of her severe contumacious acts of making scurrilous and scandalizing remarks against the Courts and the Judges."According to the Court, the comments were "a dedicated attempt", to bring the Court and the judges to disrepute. It emphasized that this was not a case of fair criticism, but an effort to undermine public trust in the justice system."We are also of the opinion that it is not expected from an educated person like that of the contemnor to make such comments in regard to the Courts and the Judges of the higher Courts like the Supreme Court and the High Courts. It cannot be believed that when the contemnor undertook such contumacious writing, she was not conscious or could be said to be unaware of the consequences of such writing. In fact, right from the “title of the article” apart from its other contents as underscored by us, shows a dedicated attempt, a well thought of design calculated to bring the Court and the Judges to a disrepute and intended to tarnish the judicial system so as to interfere with the due course of justice and administration of law by the courts with impunity."Srinandan was ordered to surrender to the police station at the High Court. Her sentence has been suspended for 10 days at her lawyer’s request..Senior Advocate Vikram Nankani, along with Advocates Ativ Patel, Viloma Shah, Harshad Vyas instructed by AVP Partners appeared for Srinandan..Advocates Amjith M Anandhan, Pranjal Agarwal, Dixita Gohil, Ujjawal Pratap and Rounak Burad, instructed by Sandhya Yadav, appeared for Seawood Estates.Advocates SV Sonawane, Satish Muley, Mosin Naik and Zhoaib Sayyed appeared for intervenors.Advocates YS Bhate, DP Singh and AA Ansari appeared for the Union of India.Advocates Ankit Ojha and RK Dubey appeared for the Animal Welfare Board.Government Pleader Neha Bhide along with Additional Government Pleader MM Pabale appeared for the State of Maharashtra.Advocate Manisha Shekhar Jagtap appeared for Pune Municipal Corporation and CIDCO.Advocate Tejesh Dande appeared for Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation..[Read Judgment]