The Bombay High Court has sentenced a woman from Navi Mumbai to one week of simple jail time for writing an article that insulted the court. The court said her article was a serious attack on the judiciary and affected the way justice is carried out.
The woman, Vineeta Srinandan, had written and shared the article in a large residential complex, calling it a piece on the “dog mafia.” The court said her words showed disrespect toward judges of both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
A bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna found her guilty of criminal contempt of court.
Her lawyer, senior advocate Vikram Nankani, requested the court to suspend her sentence for 10 days so she can file an appeal with the Supreme Court.
What Led to the Contempt Case?
Vineeta Srinandan was a director at Seawoods Estates Ltd, a large housing complex in Navi Mumbai. The housing society had gone to the High Court against a government rule that requires societies to allow stray dogs to be fed in the premises and for civic bodies to provide feeding areas.
In the same complex, a resident named Leela Verma complained she was being stopped from feeding stray dogs. The court gave an interim order in January telling Seawoods not to obstruct her or stop domestic help from reaching her flat.
Later, Verma's lawyer showed the court a circular written by Srinandan on January 29, which was circulated among the 1,500 families in the complex. The court found the contents very offensive and decided to start contempt proceedings.
On February 4, the court said the article was “brazen, derogatory, and objectionable.” Since Srinandan was not in India at the time, she was sent a notice on February 7 asking why she should not be punished for contempt. By February 21, the housing society clearly stated that it did not support her actions.
Srinandan submitted an affidavit saying the article was a mistake. She said she respected the judiciary and had already resigned from her post. She also asked for forgiveness.
However, the court said her response looked like an attempt to cover up her actions and lacked true remorse.
Final Judgment
The court said her article seemed like a planned attack meant to damage the reputation of the court and its judges. The judges said they could have given her the maximum punishment of six months, but chose to be more lenient.
“ The law is the same for everyone,” the court said, and fined her ₹2,000 along with the jail sentence.
The woman, Vineeta Srinandan, had written and shared the article in a large residential complex, calling it a piece on the “dog mafia.” The court said her words showed disrespect toward judges of both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
A bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna found her guilty of criminal contempt of court.
Her lawyer, senior advocate Vikram Nankani, requested the court to suspend her sentence for 10 days so she can file an appeal with the Supreme Court.
What Led to the Contempt Case?
Vineeta Srinandan was a director at Seawoods Estates Ltd, a large housing complex in Navi Mumbai. The housing society had gone to the High Court against a government rule that requires societies to allow stray dogs to be fed in the premises and for civic bodies to provide feeding areas.
In the same complex, a resident named Leela Verma complained she was being stopped from feeding stray dogs. The court gave an interim order in January telling Seawoods not to obstruct her or stop domestic help from reaching her flat.
Later, Verma's lawyer showed the court a circular written by Srinandan on January 29, which was circulated among the 1,500 families in the complex. The court found the contents very offensive and decided to start contempt proceedings.
On February 4, the court said the article was “brazen, derogatory, and objectionable.” Since Srinandan was not in India at the time, she was sent a notice on February 7 asking why she should not be punished for contempt. By February 21, the housing society clearly stated that it did not support her actions.
Srinandan submitted an affidavit saying the article was a mistake. She said she respected the judiciary and had already resigned from her post. She also asked for forgiveness.
However, the court said her response looked like an attempt to cover up her actions and lacked true remorse.
Final Judgment
The court said her article seemed like a planned attack meant to damage the reputation of the court and its judges. The judges said they could have given her the maximum punishment of six months, but chose to be more lenient.
“ The law is the same for everyone,” the court said, and fined her ₹2,000 along with the jail sentence.
You may also like
Is 'ghar ka khana' sabotaging your fitness? Redditors call out macro imbalance in homemade meals
Pahalgam Massacre: ₹20 Lakh Reward for Leads on Terrorists Behind Brutal Tourist Attack
South Korea: Ex-DP leader Lee maintains big lead in presidential election poll
Incredible gangster film for The Godfather fans - 91% score and Al Pacino's 'best movie'
Footballer's Wives cast now from Coronation Street to sex scene that scarred star for life
