Contempt power neither personal armour for judges nor sword to silence criticism: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said courts must remain conscious while exercising the contempt jurisdiction that this power is neither a personal armour for judges nor a sword to silence criticism.

The observation came from a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta that remitted a one-week sentence imposed on a woman by the Bombay High Court in a suo-motu criminal contempt matter.

The apex court said mercy 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.

It said 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," the bench said.

"After all, it requires fortitude to acknowledge contrition for one's lapse, and an even greater virtue to extend forgiveness to the erring," it said.

The bench delivered its verdict on an appeal against the high court's April 23 order holding the appellant guilty of committing the offence of criminal contempt of court.

The high court had sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a week and imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 on her.

The top court noted that the appellant before it was a former director of the Cultural of Seawoods Estates Limited housing complex.

It noted that in a pending petition before the high court challenging the vires of Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, an intervenor had filed an affidavit stating that the appellant had issued a circular in January 2025 that contained remarks about the alleged "dog mafia".

The high court had observed that the circular was "contemptuous in nature" and later, directed that show-cause notice be issued to the appellant.

The top court noted that in 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 the appellant.

The appellant had also filed an affidavit before the high court and 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.

The high court had observed that the act of publishing the contemptuous circular by the contemnor satisfied the ingredients of criminal contempt, as it "scandalised and lowered the authority of the court".

Dealing with the appeal, the apex court said in her affidavit filed before the high court, the appellant had tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology. "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," the bench said.

Referring to section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which deals with punishment for contempt of court, the bench said a holistic reading of the provision indicates that it contemplates not merely the imposition of punishment but also the power to remit the same.

It said the statutory scheme is clear that 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," the bench said.

It said 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 bench also referred to the erroneous reliance placed by the high court on some earlier apex court decisions.

"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," it said.

The bench said in this case, the appellant had promptly entered appearance and filed her reply affidavit pursuant to the show-cause notice issued by the high court in February.

"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," it said.

It said the high court had failed to exercise its contempt jurisdiction with due circumspection.

The bench said in the absence of any material suggesting that the apology was lacking in bona fides, the high court ought to have considered remitting the sentence in accordance with law.

"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," the top court said while allowing the appeal.