Have you ever heard of a “dog mafia” involving the courts? Neither had the Bombay High Court, until a woman floated the idea in a circular she then distributed around her neighbourhood. It didn’t go down well with the Milords.

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday sentenced a Navi Mumbai woman to one week in jail and imposed a fine of ?2,000 for accusing the court for being a part of a 'dog mafia'. 

The bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Advait M Sethna said, "the contemnor is guilty of having committed criminal contempt of Court and accordingly, deserves maximum punishment to be awarded."

"The iron hands of law apply equally irrespective of the category of the contemnors. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we intend to impose a lesser punishment," the court ordered.

Navi Mumbai-based housing society Seawoods Estates Limited filed a petition challenging a rule in the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 related to the management of stray dogs. During the course of the hearing, Leela Verma, a resident in the same society, sought to join the proceedings, arguing that the society’s conduct was impacting her basic rights.

In her affidavit to the court, she attached a circular written by society's cultural director Vineeta Srinandan. The circular, published in January 2025 and distributed among 1,500 families, alleged that there existed 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."

"No matter how many people are dying or attacked in the country every year but most of the high court/supreme court orders will defend dog feeders ignoring the value of human life," it added, the Bar and Bench report quoted.

The circular prompted the court to issue a show cause notice for contempt to Srinandan and the society

The society apologised and distanced itself from Srinandan's circular. The court then dropped legal proceedings against them. Srinandan also apologised, claiming that she acted under pressure from other residents. However, the court rejected her apology, sentencing her to a week in prison.

"We do not accept any apology, which does not show any contrition or any genuine remorse," the court noted. "Such apology in our opinion, is merely a weapon in defence with an impression that the contemnor can get away by such recitals. Thus, such conduct of the contemnor cannot escape punishment, being a consequence of her severe contumacious acts of making scurrilous and scandalizing remarks against the Courts and the Judges.

"We are also of the opinion that it is not expected from an educated person like that of the contemnor to make such comments in regard to the Courts and the Judges of the higher Courts like the Supreme Court and the High Courts. It cannot be believed that when the contemnor undertook such contumacious writing, she was not conscious or could be said to be unaware of the consequences of such writing," the court added.