Contempt Questions Reach SC: Lawyer’s Letter Against Kerala Congress’s Post on CJI Converted into a Writ Petition

Apex Court registers advocate Vineet Jindal’s representation as a civil writ petition; hearing date awaited

(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has taken formal cognisance of a lawyer’s letter seeking contempt proceedings against the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC). The letter concerns a social media post directed at Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and the Registry has now registered it as a civil writ petition.

From letter to petition

Advocate Vineet Jindal addressed the representation to the Chief Justice on October 13. The Registry registered it as a civil writ petition on October 30. It has not yet been listed before any Bench, so the date on which the matter will be heard remains unknown.

The post at the centre of the matter

““Dear Surya Kant, if law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it.”

The controversy began on October 12, when the official X (formerly Twitter) handle of Congress Kerala carried a post addressing the CJI by name. In sharp terms, it told him to step down if he could not manage law and order, and it said the party would find a replacement who could. The post was taken down shortly afterwards, but not before it drew considerable attention.

The petitioner’s contentions

Jindal’s letter argues that the office of the Chief Justice of India cannot be treated as one that continues only so long as a political organisation approves of its holder. He submits that the post raises a real question does it remain within the limits of permissible political criticism, or does it call for examination under the law of criminal contempt of court?

Security arrangements under scrutiny

The letter also turns to the political demonstration of October 12 near the Supreme Court premises, which reportedly involved Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders.

It asks for an inquiry into whether any restricted area was entered without authorisation and whether any security protocol was breached.

A note of restraint

The letter is notably measured on this point. It concedes that a peaceful demonstration, political slogans at a lawful location, or the mere presence of political leaders near the Court does not by itself amount to contempt or any other offence.

To keep any inquiry grounded in verified material, Jindal has asked for CCTV footage, access-control logs and security deployment records to be preserved.

His aim is that findings rest on reliable evidence and not on unverified reports, incomplete recordings or partisan accounts.

Apology tendered by KPCC

The development follows an unconditional apology from the KPCC to the CJI. Replying on October 22 to a legal notice from Meenesh Dubey, Joint Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association, KPCC President Sunny Joseph said the post was published by party worker Vijay Thottathil.

According to the reply, this happened without the knowledge, consent or consultation of the party leadership. The party stated that Thottathil has since been removed from his position.

What the Court has said so far

The matter has already been before the Court in another form. On October 15, a Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Congress party, Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders.

This was on a petition by four lawyers concerning the October 12 march to the Court. That petition also sought contempt action over the Kerala Congress post, but the Bench declined to issue notice on that prayer.

The CJI observed in open court that there would be no contempt action for the moment. The Court was only issuing notice, he said, and would decide how to proceed after seeing the responses.

In his letter, Jindal further said that “That the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to criticize judicial decisions, observations and institutional conduct within the limits prescribed by the Constitution and applicable law. However, 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. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the aforesaid publication be examined in its complete context to determine whether any action is warranted under the applicable provisions of law”

The letter also flagged that the “mere holding of a peaceful demonstration, the raising of political slogans at a lawful location or the presence of political leaders in the vicinity of the Supreme Court does not, by itself, establish contempt of court or any other offence.”

“No contempt today. We are only issuing notice. Let us see what response is,and then we will take it forward,” the CJI had said