Supreme Court: Contempt Power Is Not a Sword to Silence Critics

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India emphasized that the power to punish for contempt should not be used as a tool to silence critics. The apex court highlighted that judicial mercy is an essential part of judicial discretion. In line with this principle, the Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court order that had sentenced a woman to one week in jail for allegedly making derogatory remarks about the judiciary in a circular concerning stray dogs.

Background of the Case
The case involves a former director of the Seawoods Estates Limited Residential Complex in Navi Mumbai. She had issued a circular that was deemed contemptuous by the Bombay High Court. However, the Supreme Court noted that the woman had immediately submitted a response expressing genuine remorse and offering an unconditional apology.

SC Stresses Mercy Alongside Power
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that the power to punish must be balanced with the power to forgive. “When a person accused of contempt acknowledges their mistake and seeks forgiveness, courts must exercise leniency,” the judgment said. The court underscored that accepting sincere remorse is not only lawful but also reflects the humane aspect of justice.

Contempt Law and Section 12
The Supreme Court referred to Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, stating that an apology should not be rejected merely because it is conditional, as long as it is offered sincerely. While the law aims to protect the dignity of judicial institutions and prevent attempts to undermine justice, it also recognizes human fallibility. Therefore, if the court is convinced of genuine remorse, it may accept the apology and either reduce or entirely waive the sentence.

SC Sets Aside Bombay High Court Order
Although the Supreme Court acknowledged that the circular was indeed contemptuous, it acquitted the woman, noting her immediate apology, resignation from the board, and acknowledgment of her mistake under pressure from residents. The bench criticized the Bombay High Court for not exercising appropriate discretion in considering her sincere remorse from the outset.

Key Takeaway
The Supreme Court’s ruling reiterates that the contempt power is meant to uphold judicial authority, not to stifle criticism. Justice, the court stressed, involves both the courage to admit one’s mistake and the grace to forgive.