The Supreme Court has overturned a Bombay High Court order sentencing a woman to jail for contempt. Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta emphasized that mercy and forgiveness are crucial judicial principles. They stated that sincere remorse and an apology, even if qualified, should be accepted, particularly when a contemnor acknowledges their mistake and seeks atonement.
NEW DELHI: Holding that mercy must remain an integral part of judicial conscience and courts should take a liberal approach when a contemnor accepts a mistake and apologises, Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed a Bombay HC order sentencing a woman to one week’s imprisonment for a contemptuous statement on the judiciary pertaining to stray dogs.Quashing the jail term awarded to a former director of a residential complex in Navi Mumbai Seawoods Estates Ltd, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the HC should have accepted her apology. It said the statutory scheme 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.”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. After all, it requires fortitude to acknowledge contrition for one’s lapse, and an even greater virtue to extend forgiveness to the erring. Mercy, therefore, 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,” SC said.Though the apex court ca-me to the conclusion that the circular issued by her was contemptuous, it let her off after noting that she promptly filed her reply in HC in which she explained the circumstances, expressed unconditional remorse for her conduct and tendered an unqualified apology at the earliest opportunity. “The Explanation to Section 12 (of Contempt Act) further provides that an apology shall not be rejected merely because it is qualified or conditional, if offered bona fide. The scheme of Section 12(1) thus reflects a balance, ie while the majesty of law must be preserved against attempts to malign the institution and those discharging judicial functions, the provision also recognises human fallibility. It is for this reason that the proviso empowers the court, upon being satisfied of genuine remorse, to accept the apology and discharge the contemnor or remit the punishment awarded,” the bench said.The HC had taken suo motu cognizance after the circular was brought to its notice and proceedings were initiated after the residential society told the court it was not responsible for it. The woman had told HC that she had made a grave error in issuing the circular, which was done upon mental pressure exerted by residents. She further stated that she had also resigned from the board of directors of Seawoods.”Therefore, in our considered view, HC failed to exercise its contempt jurisdiction with due circumspection. Once the contemnor had, from the very first day of her appearance in the suo motu proceedings, expressed remorse and tendered an unconditional apology, HC was required to examine whether such apology satisfied the statutory parameters under Section 12 of the Contempt Act. Thus, in our opinion, in the absence of any material suggesting that the apology was lacking in bona fides, HC ought to have considered remitting the sentence in accordance with law,” it said.
