Mumbai woman calls judges 'dog mafia', sentenced to one week of imprisonment
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday sentenced a woman to simple imprisonment in a contempt of court case.Vineeta Srinandan, a resident and Cultural Director of Seawoods housing society in Navi Mumbai, was sentenced to one week of simple imprisonment for calling the judges of the High Court and Supreme Court as part of a "dog mafia".The sentence was, however, suspended for 10 days at the request of Srinandan's legal representatives, allowing her time to challenge the order before the Supreme Court.advertisement
The contempt proceedings were initiated suo motu after Srinandan circulated written material within the Seawoods residential colony that scandalised the judiciary and interfered with the administration of justice, the court observed.Vineeta Srinandan was convicted after a document authored by her stating, "now we are convinced that there is a big dog mafia operating in the country, who has a list of High Court and Supreme Court judges..." was circulated.The case pertains to a longstanding legal proceeding between residents of Seawoods Limited over the issue of feeding stray dogs, in which a rule under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023 - mandating residential associations to accommodate the feeding of stray animals - had been challenged by the society.As part of the legal proceedings, an Intervention Application was filed by Leela Verma, a resident facing opposition while feeding dogs at designated places in society.advertisementIn January, the court issued an interim order restraining the society from preventing Leela Verma from feeding stray dogs. Subsequently, Leela Verma submitted an affidavit containing the contentious document authored and circulated by Vineeta Srinandan.The document included statements alleging judicial bias and mockery of a reported dog attack incident. It read, in part: 'Now we are convinced that there is a big dog mafia operating in the country, who has a list of High Court and Supreme Court judges having views similar to the dog feeders... most of the high court/supreme court orders will defend dog feeders, ignoring the value of human life.'The court found these remarks deeply offensive, noting that the content was a "dedicated attempt" to undermine the dignity and authority of the judiciary. A show-cause notice was issued to Srinandan on February 7, and although she later submitted an affidavit with an unconditional apology, the court deemed it insincere."We do not accept any apology which does not show any contrition or any genuine remorse," the bench stated, adding that the apology appeared to be "a routine mantra of sorry" intended only as a legal shield.The court emphasised that such conduct, especially from an educated individual, reflected a conscious and calculated attempt to tarnish the judicial system.Must Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
20 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC rejects plea on deportation drive in Assam, asks petitioner to move HC
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea which alleged that the Assam government has reportedly launched a "sweeping" drive to detain and deport persons suspected to be foreigners without nationality verification or exhaustion of legal remedies. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter. "Why are you not going to the Gauhati High Court?" the bench asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who appeared for petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union. Hegde said the plea was based on an order passed by the apex court earlier. "Please go to the Gauhati High Court," the bench observed. Hegde said the petitioner would withdraw the plea to take appropriate recourse before the high court. The bench allowed him to withdraw the plea. The plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, referred to a February 4 order of the top court which, while dealing with a separate petition, had directed Assam to initiate the process of deportation of 63 declared foreign nationals, whose nationality was known, within two weeks. "Pursuant to the said order (of February 4)... the state of Assam has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners, even in the absence of foreigners tribunal declarations, nationality verification, or exhaustion of legal remedies," the plea claimed. It referred to news reports, including one about a retired school teacher who was allegedly "pushed back" into Bangladesh. "These instances reflect a growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court," it claimed. "The 'push back' policy, as implemented, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by deporting individuals without due process, thereby denying them the opportunity to contest their deportation and infringing upon their right to life and personal liberty," the plea claimed. It alleged that the indiscriminate application of deportation directives, coupled with absence of proper identification, verification and notice mechanisms, has resulted in a situation where Indian citizens were being wrongfully incarcerated and threatened with removal to foreign territories without lawful basis. The plea sought a direction that no person shall be deported pursuant to the February 4 order without a prior reasoned declaration by the foreigners tribunal, without adequate opportunity of appeal or review and verification of nationality by the Ministry of External Affairs. It also sought a declaration that the "push back" policy adopted by Assam was violative of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and contrary to binding judicial precedents. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Scroll.in
40 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
SC refuses to entertain petition against Assam ‘pushing' back declared foreigners to Bangladesh
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition challenging the Assam government 'pushing' back to Bangladesh persons who have been declared foreigners by the Foreigners Tribunals in the state, Live Law reported. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and SC Sharma was hearing a petition filed by the All BTC Minority Students Union, which claimed that the Bharatiya Janata Party government in the state was arbitrarily pushing Indian citizens to Bangladesh without following due process under the guise of deporting undocumented migrants. 'Why are you not going to the Gauhati High Court?' PTI quoted the bench as asking advocate Sanjay Hegde, who appeared for the All BTC Minority Students Union. In response, Hegde said that the petition was based on an order passed by the top court earlier. The advocate also said that the union would withdraw the petition and take recourse before the High Court. The Supreme Court then allowed him to withdraw the petition. The petition came against the backdrop of a surge in detentions of declared foreigners in Assam since May 23. Families say they have no information on their relatives' whereabouts. Some of them have identified their missing relatives in videos from Bangladesh, alleging they were forcibly sent across the border. Scroll had earlier reported that a former teacher from Morigaon district, Khairul Islam, whose citizenship case was still being heard in the Supreme Court, had been picked up from the Matia detention centre and forced out along the Bangladesh border near Assam's South Salmara district in the early hours of May 27. In a video recorded by journalist Mostafuzur Tara from Bangladesh's Rangpur division, Khairul Islam alleged that he was among 14 persons 'pushed' into Bangladesh by India's Border Security Force on the morning of May 27. Islam and the others were reported to be in no man's land, between the two countries. Three days later, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma admitted to 'pushing' back persons who were declared foreigners by the Foreigners Tribunals to Bangladesh. Stating that the process to push back foreigners would continue, Sarma claimed that the action was being taken as per the directives issued by the Supreme Court in February. On February 4, the Supreme Court directed the state government to start the process of deporting foreign nationals being held in the state's detention centres immediately. It had said that foreign nationals can be deported even without an address. 'You cannot continue to detain them they are held to be foreigners, they should be deported immediately.' Foreigners Tribunals in Assam are quasi-judicial bodies that adjudicate on matters of citizenship. Only those living in the state before March 25, 1971, or their descendants, qualify as Indian citizens in Assam, as per the Assam Accord. However, these tribunals have been accused of arbitrariness and bias, and of declaring people foreigners on the basis of minor spelling mistakes, a lack of documents or lapses in memory. In its petition, the All BTC Minority Students Union said that after the February 4 order, the Assam government had 'reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners, even in the absence of Foreigners Tribunal declarations, nationality verification, or exhaustion of legal remedies', PTI reported. Referring to several news reports about persons being 'pushed' into Bangladesh, the petition said that these instances reflected a 'growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court'.
New Indian Express
44 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Telengana phone tapping case: Ex-SIB chief likely to return to India after SC grants interim protection from arrest
HYDERABAD: T Prabhakar Rao, the prime accused in the phone-tapping case and former chief of the Special Intelligence Branch (SIB), is likely to return to India in the coming days following interim protection granted by the Supreme Court. A few days ago, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) revoked his passport at the request of Telangana police. With the Supreme Court directing the police not to take any coercive action until further orders, the court also instructed authorities to facilitate his return by restoring his passport or issuing a travel document. Sources told TNIE that Prabhakar Rao is expected to visit the Indian Embassy in the US on Monday to apply for a one-time travel document using the Supreme Court's directive. Once issued, he will return to India and is expected to appear before the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the case. The Panjagutta police registered the case on March 10, 2024. Prabhakar Rao left the country the following day and has remained in the US since. INTERPOL also issued a Red Corner Notice against him a few months ago. Meanwhile, Hyderabad police obtained a proclamation order from the Nampally court. If Rao fails to return by June 20, he will be officially declared a proclaimed offender. Notices have already been served at his residence and in his colony.
