The Supreme Court registered a suo motu contempt petition over KPCC’s deleted social media post targeting CJI Surya Kant.
KPCC president Sunny Joseph said the post was unauthorised, disapproved its language and removed the media cell official.
Lawyer Vineet Jindal sought preservation of CCTV footage, security logs and digital records linked to the October 12 episode.
The Supreme Court has registered a suo motu writ petition seeking contempt action against the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee over a derogatory social media post aimed at Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
The registry combined separate letters from lawyers Vineet Jindal and Sreejesh SR into a common petition on Friday, as reported by Hindustan Times. The matter is tentatively listed for November 6.
The post addressed the CJI as “Dear Surya Kant” and said, “If law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it.” The post was later deleted.
The case stems from a row over the October 12 post, which appeared while the top court was hearing petitions seeking a probe into alleged Delhi Police excesses during Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests in Delhi. The proceedings will now cover the post, the party’s response and requests to preserve electronic and security records linked to the episode.
Post Sparks Backlash
The post drew a sharp response. It was published on October 12 during the Supreme Court hearing on petitions over alleged Delhi Police excesses during the CJP protests in the capital and was later deleted.
The Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association then condemned the demand for the CJI’s resignation. In resolutions, the two associations stated that the statement borders on contempt because it weakens public confidence in the judiciary and interferes with the administration of justice.
That was followed by legal action. SCBA joint secretary Meneesh Dubey sent a legal notice to KPCC president Sunny Joseph on October 16, seeking a response to the post.
KPCC Response Explored
KPCC replied on October 22. Joseph informed the SCBA that the post had been put out by Vijay Thottathil of the KPCC media cell “without the prior knowledge, approval or consultation of the KPCC leadership”.
He added, “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.”
The party acknowledged that its official account was used for an “unauthorised communication”, but disputed any suggestion that the leadership had cleared the content. Thottathil has since been removed from his position and asked to issue a public apology.
KPCC also distanced itself from the post’s wording. “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 Seeks Records
Jindal wrote to the CJI on October 13 over the KPCC post on X and urged the court to take suo motu cognisance for criminal contempt. He argued that the issue went beyond one post and raised a wider question about attacks on the authority of the court.
In that letter, 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 said, “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.”
Jindal also linked the post to events inside the court complex on October 12. He referred to a 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 the Election Commission of India, posing a security threat within the court’s precincts.
He asked the court to preserve digital and physical evidence. “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.”
His request also covered CCTV footage, entry registers, access control logs, security deployment records and verified video recordings, along with other relevant material.
Parallel Contempt Matter
The top court is separately examining a petition filed by the SCBA against Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle over derogatory posts against the CJI and the judiciary linked to the October 12 events.
That matter has also moved ahead this week. A bench headed by justice Aravind Kumar directed Raut to appear physically before the court, while Wagle was permitted to appear virtually. give healidne strap and 3 pointer summary
