SC seeks Kerala Congress response to contempt plea over objectionable post against CJI Kant

The Supreme Court sought responses from KPCC office bearers on a contempt plea over a deleted post calling for CJI Surya Kant’s resignation.

The Supreme Court on Friday sought responses from Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) office bearers on a petition seeking contempt of court action over an objectionable social media post against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, observing that the “independence of the judiciary” was not a matter of “political convenience”.

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea seeking contempt action over an October 12 post on the Kerala Congress’s official X account.

The bench of justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi said it would examine whether the deleted post, published by the party’s official X account, amounted to contempt of court and issued notice on the petition filed by advocate Vineet Jindal, who sought suo motu contempt action over the post published by INC Keralam on October 12.

The bench said, “Only the Constitution is supreme. No individual or political organisation stands above it,” as it emphasised that the authority of the court rests on the rule of law and does not require “political endorsement”. “Any attempt to undermine it needs to be dealt with an iron hand,” the court held.

The post addressed the CJI as “Dear Surya Kant” and called on him to resign, adding that the party would find a replacement who could handle law and order.

The KPCC appeared through its lawyer and informed the bench that the post was published by a person in the media wing without the approval of KPCC president Sunny Joseph. The post was soon deleted, the person was removed, and an unconditional apology was issued by the committee.

The bench observed, “We have to examine whether it (apology) has come from the pen or the heart,” even as it exempted the KPCC office bearers from personal appearance on the next date of hearing.

Jindal said that the post was viewed by more than 10 million people, causing widespread damage to the reputation and authority of the judiciary. He pointed out that such a post by a political party could undermine public confidence in the institution.

The bench said, “Our judgments are always open to criticism, but freedom of expression cannot be a shield for intimidation or interference with the administration of justice.” The court said it would examine whether the material amounted to contempt of court and sought the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani. The court was also inclined to appoint an amicus curiae, while indicating the names of senior advocates Arvind Datar and Siddharth Agarwal.

Jindal wrote a letter to the CJI on October 13 seeking action against the KPCC post. His letter was converted into a writ petition.

Following the publication of the post, the two Supreme Court bar associations – the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCOARA) – condemned the demand for the CJI’s resignation.

The two associations issued resolutions stating that such a statement bordered on contempt as it undermined public confidence in the judiciary and amounted to interference in the administration of justice. Following this, SCBA joint secretary Meneesh Dubey issued a legal notice to KPCC president Sunny Joseph on October 16, seeking a response to the post.

Subsequently, on October 22, the KPCC president responded to the legal notice, stating that the post was published by Vijay Thottathil, a member of the KPCC Media Cell, “without the prior knowledge, approval or consultation of the KPCC leadership”.

Joseph said in his reply, “Neither I nor the leadership had authorised him to demand the resignation of the CJI or to suggest that the organisation would find a replacement.” Though the committee admitted that the party’s official account was used for such an “unauthorised communication”, it stated that this did not establish that its contents were approved by the leadership.

Thottathil has since been removed from his position and asked to issue a public apology for the publication. The response further said, “The KPCC disapproves of, expressly disagrees with and censures the language employed in the post. The demand for resignation and the suggestion of finding a replacement for the CJI were inappropriate and should not have appeared on an official party platform,” the response stated.

Jindal’s letter said, “The office of the Chief Justice of India is a constitutional judicial office and cannot be treated as one whose continuance is subject to the approval or displeasure of any political organisation.”

“Legitimate criticism must be distinguished from conduct that may undermine the authority of the court or interfere with the administration of justice. The distinction must be assessed in the light of the language used, its context, the circumstances of publication and its actual or reasonably apprehended effect,” he further said.

Meanwhile, the same bench that heard the matter on Friday is also examining a petition filed by the SCBA against Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle over their derogatory posts against the CJI and the judiciary in relation to the October 12 events. The court directed Raut to appear in person, while Wagle was permitted to appear virtually.