Introduction:

The Bombay High Court, in a stern ruling, directed a Navi Mumbai housing society to tender an unconditional apology for defying a prior court order and for contemptuous remarks made against the judiciary. The division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna had previously ruled that the society could not restrain a resident’s house help merely because the resident fed stray dogs. However, the society not only disregarded this directive but also issued derogatory communications against both the High Court and the Supreme Court. One of the society’s committee members, Vineeta Srinandan, authored a particularly contemptuous circular but could not be proceeded against immediately as she was in Abu Dhabi. Another member, Alok Agarwal, who had sent objectionable emails, was ordered to publish an unconditional apology. The court further demanded that the entire committee submit an affidavit expressing genuine remorse, failing which contempt proceedings would be initiated against them.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, a resident of the housing society, contended that the society’s actions violated fundamental rights, as restricting her house help’s entry was an unjust punishment for her act of feeding stray dogs. She argued that the society had resorted to harassment tactics, including issuing derogatory circulars that maligned the judiciary, instead of complying with the court’s order. She sought enforcement of the earlier order and action against the responsible members for their defiance.

The housing society, represented by Alok Agarwal, maintained that its decisions were in the collective interest of residents. However, the society’s credibility suffered when it was revealed that Srinandan had circulated a highly contemptuous circular, and Agarwal himself had sent objectionable emails to residents. Their position weakened further when the society’s legal counsel refused to represent them due to their contemptuous stance against the court. The committee later attempted to file an affidavit expressing compliance, but it lacked sincerity, prompting the court’s rebuke.

Court’s Judgment:

The Bombay High Court took serious note of the society’s defiance and derogatory communications against the judiciary. It emphasized that while differences in opinion exist, targeting the judiciary with contemptuous language was unacceptable. The bench reprimanded the society, particularly highlighting that its lawyers had refused to represent them due to their stance. The judges gave a final opportunity for the society’s committee to submit a proper affidavit by Friday, unequivocally apologizing for their conduct. Failure to comply would result in contempt proceedings against all committee members. The court’s strong remarks underscored the sanctity of judicial orders and the necessity for respect towards judicial institutions.