Post seeking CJI's resignation: Supreme Court issues contempt notices to KPCC office-bearers

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has expressed strong displeasure over a post on the Kerala Congress unit's X account calling for the resignation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

The court has directed all Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) office-bearers, including president Sunny Joseph, to explain why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against them. It also ordered that contempt notices be issued to all office-bearers.

A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi said any attempt to undermine the authority of the court must be dealt with firmly. It warned that the court's restraint should not be mistaken for weakness.

Senior advocate M R Ramesh Babu, appearing for the KPCC, tendered an unconditional apology. However, the court refused to accept it immediately, saying it would examine whether the apology came from the heart.

The advocate said the person who posted the message had been removed from the organisation's digital media cell and that the post was not made with the knowledge of the KPCC.

When the advocate pointed out that the KPCC had more than 70 office-bearers, the court said that was no excuse and that every office-bearer would have to respond.

The Bench clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue. It asked Attorney General R Venkataramani to assist the court and appointed senior advocates Arvind Datar and Gaurav Agrawal as amicus curiae.

The directions came while hearing petitions filed by Vineet Jindal and Sreejesh S R. The matter will be heard again on December 15.

Political support not needed

The Supreme Court also observed that it did not need political support or any other form of recognition. Its foundation rests on the Constitution and the rule of law, it said.

The Constitution is supreme, and no individual, institution or political organisation is above it, the Bench observed. The independence of the judiciary cannot be altered to suit political convenience.

Court judgments can be subjected to criticism. However, freedom of speech cannot be used as a shield to threaten the judiciary or interfere with the administration of justice, it said.

The Bench made it clear that no one, regardless of the high position they hold, would be allowed to obstruct the course of justice. If it is established that someone has interfered with the judicial process, the law will take its course against those responsible, irrespective of their influence. The controversial post was published on October 12.