Supreme Court AOR Seeks Criminal Contempt Action Against Kerala Congress Chief Over X Post Telling CJI to 'Resign Now'

A Supreme Court advocate-on-record (AOR) has approached Attorney General R Venkataramani seeking written consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) president Sunny Joseph and the administrators of the party’s social media account over a now-deleted post asking Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to resign.

In an application dated October 16, advocate Savita Singh alleged that the post published by the Congress Kerala’s verified X handle on October 12 was derogatory and intimidating towards the CJI and had the potential to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

The post read: “Dear Surya Kant, If law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it".

Singh has sought the Attorney General’s written consent under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, to initiate criminal contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court.

The development comes amid a series of legal challenges and demands for action over the post.

On October 17, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Joint Secretary Meenesh Dubey issued a legal notice to Joseph seeking an explanation for the absence of a public apology and an express reprimand over the post.

Four advocates have also moved the Supreme Court seeking a party-neutral framework to keep political processions, protests and sloganeering away from constitutional courts, and have asked it to consider initiating suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against several opposition leaders over the events of Monday, October 12, when an opposition march headed towards the Court and posts demanding the resignation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant appeared on X.

Why the post targeting the CJI was published

The Congress Kerala post was published in response to a Press Trust of India update reporting the CJI’s remarks on protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and restrictions imposed across the national capital.

The remarks came amid an opposition march towards the Supreme Court seeking the CEC’s resignation and a halt to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Leader of the Opposition (LOP) in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and LOP in Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge had written to the CJI seeking an appointment to submit a memorandum. The CJI declined the request, stating that the issues were already pending before the Supreme Court and that a meeting to discuss them would be inconsistent with the separation of powers and judicial propriety.

The post asking the CJI to resign was subsequently deleted following criticism.

As per media reports, KPCC president Sunny Joseph had said the post was published without the knowledge, consent or consultation of the state party leadership. He also said the person responsible for the post had been removed from the position and that the party would examine the circumstances in which it was published.

Application alleges criminal contempt

In her application, Singh contended that the post scandalised and lowered the authority of the Supreme Court by addressing the sitting CJI in what she described as coercive, intimidating and condescending language.

"Addressing the Chief Justice of India in an overtly coercive, intimidating and condescending manner ("Dear Surya Kant", …. "resign now", "We will find your replacement") publicly denigrates the dignity and majesty of the apex judicial office of the Country," the plea states. 

Invoking Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, which defines criminal contempt to include publications that scandalise or tend to scandalise, or lower or tend to lower, the authority of any court, she argued that the post falls within the statutory definition.

The application further alleges that the statement could interfere with judicial functioning and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, particularly because matters relating to the protests were pending before the Court.

It argues: "Issuing a public directive threatening with removal ("We will find your replacement") by a political entity constitutes an unconstitutional attempt to bypass procedure, intimidate judicial officers, and disrupt judicial independence."

The applicant has also invoked Article 129 of the Constitution, under which the Supreme Court, as a court of record, has the power to punish for contempt of itself.

Constitutional safeguards governing removal of judges

The application also relies on Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, referring to the safeguards governing the removal of judges.

It argues that a public demand to replace a sitting CJI by a political entity attempts to bypass the constitutionally prescribed process and could intimidate judicial officers.

Under Article 124(4), a Supreme Court judge can be removed by an order of the President following an address by each House of Parliament, supported by the requisite special majority, on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

Singh has contended that the alleged post warrants action to protect the dignity and independence of the Supreme Court and preserve public faith in the judicial system.

Singh’s application seeks the Attorney General’s written consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Joseph and the party’s authorised office-bearers and social media account administrators.