The woman later submitted an unconditional apology, stating that the circular was issued under pressure from society residents. However, the High Court rejected her apology, describing it as insincere and insufficient to waive punishment.
Overturning the decision, the Supreme Court said that the essence of contempt jurisprudence includes not only the authority to punish but also the discretion to forgive. The bench emphasised that a genuine apology should not be dismissed merely because it appears conditional or is tendered after proceedings begin.
The court noted that the High Court “did not exercise discretion judiciously” and failed to correctly apply the law on contempt, particularly when the accused had acknowledged her mistake. “It takes courage to admit a mistake and an even bigger heart to forgive,” the bench observed.
The Supreme Court underlined that contempt law is intended to protect the integrity of the justice system, not to silence criticism or punish individuals for errors made in good faith. The ruling reinstates the woman’s apology and closes the contempt proceedings, framing the case as a reminder of the judiciary’s obligation to adopt a humane and balanced approach while upholding its authority.
