Kerala Congress Tenders Unconditional Apology To CJI Surya Kant Over X Post Seeking His Resignation, Says Post Was Unauthorised

The apology is contained in a reply dated October 22, 2026, signed by KPCC President Sunny Joseph, to a legal notice issued by Supreme Court Advocate Meenesh Dubey. The reply records that the notice was received on October 21 and concerned a post "stated to have been published on 12 October 2026 through the official X account of Indian National Congress, Keralam, referring to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant."

At the outset, Joseph stated that the KPCC "unequivocally reaffirms its respect for the Constitution, the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional office of the Chief Justice of India." He added, "The expressions reproduced in your notice do not represent the policy, considered opinion or authorised position of the KPCC and that of the Indian National Congress."

According to the reply, the post was published by Vijay Thottathil "without the prior knowledge, approval or consultation of the KPCC leadership." Joseph wrote, "Neither I nor the leadership had authorised him to demand the resignation of the Hon'ble Chief Justice or to suggest that the organisation would find a replacement. The use of the official account for such an unauthorised communication does not establish that its contents were approved by the leadership."

The KPCC says that once the matter came to the leadership's attention, Thottathil "was removed from the position concerned" and was "expressly called upon to issue a public apology for the impugned publication." The reply describes these steps as demonstrating "the leadership's disapproval of his conduct and its decision to address the matter directly."

The reply indicates that the legal notice had raised a concern about the absence of an express reprimand. Addressing this, Joseph said that the KPCC disapproves of, and disagrees with, the language used in the post, and went on, "The demand for resignation and the suggestion of finding a replacement for the Hon'ble Chief Justice were inappropriate and should not have appeared on an official party platform."

The reply states that the KPCC has repudiated and withdrawn the statements reproduced in the notice. It then records, "On its behalf, I tender an unconditional apology to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for the publication and the disrespect conveyed by its language. This apology is independent of the public apology sought from Shri Vijay Thottathil who is actually responsible for the above post."

Joseph was careful to add that the party was not relying on the lack of authorisation to excuse the post. In his words, "The absence of prior authorisation is offered as a factual explanation, not as a justification for the expressions used."

The reply acknowledges that "an external professional agency" is involved in the KPCC's digital communications, and states that this "does not dispense with the need for effective oversight." It says the incident calls for an examination of "the arrangements governing access to the account, the authority entrusted to its operators and the approval procedures applicable to official communications."

According to the KPCC, the examination "will definitely address the drafting, review and publication of the post; the persons involved at each stage; the account permissions and devices used; and any relevant prior instructions or internal correspondence."

On preservation of evidence, the reply states, "Relevant electronic records, access logs, approval records and internal communications will be preserved. Removal of the publication from public display must not result in the destruction of material relevant to a lawful inquiry. Equally, no allegation of authorisation or complicity should be made against any individual or political leader without supporting material."

The reply states that the party "recognises the distinction between reasoned criticism of judicial decisions and language that fails to maintain the dignity expected of public discourse", adding that "Political disagreement does not excuse the expressions complained of." It records that the clarification and apology "will also be communicated through the relevant official platform so that the organisation's position reaches the audience before whom the impugned statements appeared."

Joseph closed by denying any personal role in the post, while accepting that the party's internal controls had failed, "In these circumstances, any suggestion that I have personally directed, approved or endorsed the impugned post is denied. At the same time, the KPCC accepts the need to examine the failure of its communication controls and to take appropriate measures against recurrence."