"Resign Now" Post On CJI Surya Kant: Supreme Court Registers Writ Petition Against Kerala Congress On Its Own Motion

According to the Court's case status, the matter was filed on Thursday, October 30, at 4:18 PM under Diary No. 68649/2026 and registered the same day as W.P.(C) No. 1431/2026, titled Vineet Jindal & Anr. vs. Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee.

The column for the petitioner's advocate reads "By Courts Motion". The status lists Sreejesh SR as the second petitioner and the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee as the sole respondent. The matter is pending with Section I-B and has not yet been listed before a Bench.

Jindal's complaint-cum-representation, dated October 13, 2026 and addressed to the Chief Justice, concerns two events of the previous day: the X post, and the political demonstration and slogan-shouting by opposition leaders in connection with the Supreme Court premises on the evening of October 12, which the complaint says "reportedly" involved Rahul Gandhi.

The complaint reproduces the post, which it says was published through the official account of Congress Kerala, in these words: "Dear Surya Kant, If law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it."

According to Jindal, the post "expressly calls upon the incumbent Chief Justice of India to resign and further states that the political organisation concerned would find a replacement capable of handling the issue of law and order." The question it raises, Jindal wrote, is whether the post, "when examined in its complete factual and legal context, … remains within the bounds of permissible political criticism or warrants consideration under the law relating to criminal contempt of court."

The complaint states, "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."

The complaint does not treat criticism of the judiciary as contempt in itself. It accepts that free speech "includes the right to criticise judicial decisions, observations and institutional conduct within the limits prescribed by the Constitution and applicable law", and adds, "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."

Jindal relies on Article 129 of the Constitution, which makes the Supreme Court a Court of Record with the power to punish for contempt of itself, and on the definition of criminal contempt in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which covers any publication that "scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower, the authority of any court."

He also refers the Court to two safeguards. The first is Section 13(a) of the Act, under which no sentence for contempt can be imposed unless the contempt "substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere, with the due course of justice." The second is the Supreme Court's decision in P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker, (1988) 3 SCC 167, which, the complaint says, underscores "the importance of protecting fair criticism while preserving the authority of courts and the proper administration of justice."

On the October 12 demonstration, the complaint is measured. It accepts that a peaceful protest does not, without more, amount to contempt, "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."

What calls for examination, according to Jindal, is whether the demonstrators "remained in a permitted public area, whether any restricted or prohibited area was entered without authorisation, whether lawful security instructions were complied with, and whether the movement or functioning of the Court, advocates, litigants or court staff was obstructed."

The complaint also treats the incident as a question of the Court's security, stating that "the security of the Supreme Court cannot be considered merely a matter of routine crowd management", while cautioning that any conclusion "must be founded on verified evidence and the actual facts of the incident" and reached "without presuming the guilt of any individual or organisation."

Section 15 of the 1971 Act governs how the Supreme Court takes cognisance of criminal contempt committed outside its presence, whether on its own motion or on a motion by the Attorney General, the Solicitor General or, with their written consent, any other person. Jindal's complaint asks that the matter "be placed before the appropriate Bench or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the applicable constitutional, statutory and procedural framework, if considered warranted", and adds, "This representation is not intended to bypass any statutory consent requirement, procedural requirement or applicable rule governing the institution of a formal motion for criminal contempt."

Reliefs Sought

In his prayer, Jindal asked the Chief Justice to take the complaint on record, to examine whether the @INCKerala post, viewed in its complete factual and legal context, prima facie warrants consideration under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, and, if deemed appropriate, to consider initiating "suo moto proceedings under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with the applicable provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the relevant procedural rules."

He further sought an examination by the competent authority of the actual location, nature and circumstances of the October 12 demonstration, including whether any restricted area was entered without authorisation, any lawful security instruction was violated, or the movement of advocates, litigants, judicial officers or court staff was obstructed. He also asked that the security arrangements at the Supreme Court that day, including access control, perimeter security and crowd management, be examined to find out whether there had been any breach or deficiency.

The complaint asks that CCTV footage, access-control records, security deployment records, incident reports, photographs, verified video recordings and electronic records, including the original post, its URL and account details, be preserved "so that material evidence is not lost or destroyed." Finally, it seeks appropriate action under the law "if any unlawful conduct, contempt of court or violation of security restrictions is established through reliable evidence and due process."

KPCC has separately apologised to CJI

The Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee has already addressed the post in a different proceeding. In a reply dated October 22 to a legal notice issued by Advocate Meenesh Dubey, KPCC President Sunny Joseph tendered "an unconditional apology to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for the publication and the disrespect conveyed by its language."

The reply stated that the post had been published by Vijay Thottathil "without the prior knowledge, approval or consultation of the KPCC leadership", that he had been removed from his position, and that the demand for resignation and the suggestion of finding a replacement "were inappropriate and should not have appeared on an official party platform."

The events of October 12 are also the subject of a public interest litigation filed in the Supreme Court on October 13 by four advocates, which seeks a ban on political protests inside court complexes and asks the Court to consider contempt action against several opposition leaders and the KPCC.

Case Title: Vineet Jindal & Anr. v. Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee

Bench: Supreme Court of India (hearing expected)