The Supreme Court on Friday issued a contempt notice to office-bearers of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) over a social media post targeting Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, observing that any attempt to undermine the authority of the judiciary must be dealt with an “iron hand”.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi said the Constitution was supreme and that no individual, institution or political organisation stood above it.
“The independence of the judiciary is not a matter of political convenience. It is a constitutional guarantee owed to the Republic, to the people of this Republic,” the bench observed.
The court appointed a senior advocate as amicus curiae to examine whether the matter attracted civil or criminal contempt proceedings. It also sought the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani.
The contempt proceedings stem from a post published by the KPCC on its official X account on October 12, following remarks made by CJI Surya Kant during a hearing on petitions seeking an inquiry into alleged excesses by Delhi Police during protests by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) in the national capital.
In the now-deleted post, the Kerala Congress had addressed the CJI as “Dear Surya Kant” and said: “If law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it.”
The post came after the CJI remarked that law and order was not within his domain while responding to concerns raised over the protests.
The remarks triggered a backlash, with the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCOARA) condemning the demand for the CJI's resignation.
The KPCC subsequently deleted the post and apologised. Party president Sunny Joseph said it had been published without the knowledge or approval of the state leadership. The party also removed the person responsible for managing its social media account.
The Supreme Court's intervention follows complaints by lawyers seeking contempt proceedings over the post, arguing that such remarks undermined the authority and independence of the judiciary.
Comments (0)