Mumbai: A woman who called the High Court and Supreme Court Judges of being part of a “dog mafia” was sentenced to one week of simple imprisonment by the Bombay High Court on Wednesday. The court also imposed a fine of Rs 2000 on her. At her lawyers’ request, the sentence has been suspended for 10 days.
The case pertains to a petition filed by a Navi Mumbai housing society, Seawoods Estates Limited. The society challenged a rule in the 2023 Animal Birth Control Rules regarding stray dogs.
Later in the case, a resident of the same society named Leela Verma appealed to the court to include her in the case citing that the society’s actions were violating her basic rights. To back her engagement, she attached an affidavit that included a circular written by the then society’s cultural director, Vineeta Srinandan.
The circular by Srinandan, dated January 29, 2025, was distributed among 1,500 families of the complex. The circular stated that the urban areas throughout India were targeted by “dog feeders’ mafia,” which has many judges in its list of sympathisers.
One of the paragraphs of the circular read, “In one case, where we had shown the video of a Dog attack on a small girl in front of building 11 to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court made fun of it and outrightly rejected it by saying that the dog wanted to play with that girl.
Now we are convinced that there is a big Dog mafia operating in the country, which has a list of High Court and Supreme Court judges having views similar to the dog feeders.”
This led the Bombay High Court to issue a show cause notice for contempt to Srinandan and Seawoods Estates. Responding to the notice, the estate apologised and distanced itself from the circular, stating that it was never approved by the estate. It also called the words by Srinandan, “reckless”.
In a separate affidavit, Srinandan stated that she acted under pressure from other residents and her intention was not to undermine the courts. She said that she resigned from her post as she regretted her words.
The court, however, dismissed her apology, saying that it lacked sincerity, calling it a “whitewash” and “a routine mantra of sorry”. The judgement read, “We do not accept any apology which does not show any contrition or any genuine remorse. Such an apology, in our opinion, is merely a weapon in defence with the impression that the contemnor can get away with such recitals. Thus, such conduct of the contemnor cannot escape punishment, being a consequence of her severe contumacious acts of making scurrilous and scandalising remarks against the Courts and the Judges.”
