E-Paper
Supreme Court registers suo motu contempt case over Kerala Congress' derogatory post against CJI Surya Kant
Converting separate letters addressed by two lawyers into a common petition on Friday, the court has tentatively listed the matter on November 6.
Prefer HTon Google
The Supreme Court has registered a suo motu writ petition seeking contempt of court action against Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) for publishing a derogatory post against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant.
Converting separate letters addressed by two lawyers – Vineet Jindal and Sreejesh SR – into a common petition on Friday, the registry of the Supreme Court has tentatively listed the matter to November 6. Track live updates on anti-SIR protest
Jindal wrote a letter to the CJI on October 13 citing a post published by KPCC on ‘X’ that was subsequently deleted. The post published addressed the CJI as “Dear Surya Kant” and stated, “If law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it.”
The post that kicked up a row was published on October 12 amid the hearing by the top court on a bunch of petitions seeking probe into excesses by the Delhi Police during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests in the capital city.
Also read: Kharge accuses CEC Gyanesh Kumar of 'treason', levels 6 charges during INDIA bloc's mock impeachment
Following the controversial post, the two bar associations of the Supreme Court – Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCOARA) – condemned the demand for CJI’s resignation.
The two associations had issued resolutions stating that such a statement borders on contempt as it undermines public confidence in the judiciary and amounts to interference in the administration of justice. Pursuant to this, SCBA joint secretary Meneesh Dubey had issued a legal notice to KPCC President Sunny Joseph on October 16 seeking response on the said post.
Subsequently, on October 22, KPCC president responded to the legal notice and said the post was published by one Vijay Thottathil of the KPCC media cell “without the prior knowledge, approval or consultation of the KPCC leadership”.
Joseph in his reply said, “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 it admitted that the official account of the party was used for such an “unauthorised communication”, it stated that it does not establish that its contents were approved by the leadership.
Thottathil has since been removed from the position and he has been called upon to issue a public apology for the said publication, the response further stated. “The KPCC disapproves of and expressly disagrees with, 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,” it stated.
Jindal’s letter urged the court to take suo motu cognisance of initiating criminal contempt on the post stating that the issue raises a larger question. Jindal 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.”
He further states, “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.”
Also read: Air Chief Marshal Ashutosh Dixit takes charge as new IAF chief amid modernisation push
He brought to the court’s attention the reported political demonstration and slogan-shouting by Congress leaders and other Opposition leaders inside the Supreme Court premises on October 12 when Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi along with other political party leaders came with a large gathering of lawyers to file their petition challenging the special intensive revision (SIR) and the functioning of Election Commission of India posing a security threat within the court’s precincts.
Linking the two events – the demonstration and the tweet – Jindal said, “In order to ascertain the true and complete facts concerning the reported events, I respectfully request that the competent authority consider preserving and examining the relevant material, wherever available, including the original social-media publication by INC Keralam (@INCKerala), its URL, date and time of publication, account details, surrounding statements and available electronic records.”
It also sought preservation of CCTV footage covering the entry gates and areas within the court, entry registers, access control logs, security deployment records and verified video recordings and other material.
The top court is also examining a petition filed by SCBA against Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle for their derogatory posts against the CJI and the judiciary in relation to the October 12 events. A bench headed by justice Aravind Kumar had earlier this week directed Raut to appear physically before the court while Wagle was permitted to appear virtually.
