Bombay High Court Reserves Order In Contempt Case Against Woman Who Called Court 'Dog Mafias' Over Dispute Between Society & Dog Feeders

While hearing the matter in which a contempt of court notice was issued against a Navi Mumbai-based society's female resident for making objectionable comments against judges over their order in favour of dog feeders, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday sought to know from where the woman conceived the idea of calling courts as 'dog mafias' and making other objectionable remarks against the courts.

A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna had issued a show cause notice to Vineeta Srinandan, a resident of the plush Seawoods Estate society in Navi Mumbai, who had circulated a letter making 'objectionable and derogatory' comments against the Supreme Court as well as the HC after it (HC) passed an order against the society for disallowing house help of one of the residents to enter the society, as she fed stray dogs in the premises.

The bench had on February 5, ordered the other members of the society's committee to 'apologise from the bottom of their heart and show remorse' after Srinandan, who was a member of the committee, circulated an objectionable letter against the judges and the judiciary, among the members of the society.

On Tuesday, the judges, after going through Srinandan's affidavit expressing her 'unconditional apology' said such a language (used in the letter she circulated) is not expected from a learned and educated person. 

"From where did she conceived that you (courts) are a dog mafia... These ideas are not something which comes from an educated person... May be a rustic villager who doesn't know anything have said this... That can be understood but not this. She's terming our orders as illegal orders and a personal allegation against us that these judges want to get their illegal orders be implemented..." Justice Kulkarni remarked.

The judges made it clear that they have 'limited' scope while hearing criminal contempt of court matters and that they were only concerned with the 'dignity of the institution.'

"It's shocking how a learned person like this can make such utterances..." Justice Kulkarni observed, to which senior counsel Vikram Nankani representing Srinandan, explained that his client was in a 'disturbed state of mind' as she was being 'harassed' by the dog feeders in the society and also the ones, who opposed dog feeding. 

"I cannot justify but can also say that she has written all this in a very disturbed state of mind," Nankani submitted. 

Interrupting the senior counsel, Justice Kulkarni said, "But if you have such problems and grievance you can complain to the civic authorities instead of abusing judges...We don't have to do anything with her state of mind... Had she been a person with mental disability the situation would have been different..."

To this, Nankani urged the judges show some 'magnanimity' and pointed out that his client has 'unconditionally' apologised to the court and has withdrawn her communication and has even stepped down from her post in the society committee. 

"How can someone be struck with such a perversity to make such allegations even against the highest court of the country..." Justice Kulkarni asked, to which, Nankani responded, "Probably the state of mind, the frustration because of the the dog feeders and their opposing residents."

However, the bench said such 'perversity' was a result of her 'audacity and recklessness.'

To buttress his case, Nankani informed the bench that a total of 77 complaints have been made by the residents in the society in last few years and a total of 18 dog bite cases have taken place. This, he said, is besides residents being attacked almost daily during their morning walks etc. 

"My client has urged the dog feeders to feed the dogs at the designated sites but they don't listen and feed anywhere they feel like for eg. even in the parking lot. There are three dogs within the society premises as of now," the senior counsel said. 

At this, the bench said, "For 3 dogs? For 3 dogs, your client is going to this extent? She is saying all these kinds of things for the highest court of the land ?"

During the hearing, Nankani referred to the Supreme Court judgement in which it imposed a cost of Re 1 on advocate Prashant Bhushan.

However, the bench seemed unimpressed, "But then he (Prashant Bhushan) was a respectable member of the Bar... Nonetheless he was convicted...Also the facts of that case and this one cannot be compared."

Meanwhile, advocate Sultana Sonawane, appearing for one of the dog feeders, told the judges that Srinandan is habitual in calling names especially using the word 'mafia' against judiciary, dog feeders, government officials and even civic officials, who speak in favour of feeding stray dogs. 

Taking note of all the submissions, the bench closed the matter for pronouncing its judgment.