The Supreme Court on Friday sought responses from Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) office bearers on a petition seeking contempt of court action over an objectionable social media post against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, observing that the “independence of the judiciary” was not a matter of “political convenience”.
The court was also inclined to appoint an amicus curiae, while indicating the names of senior advocates Arvind Datar and Siddharth Agarwal. The two associations issued resolutions stating that such a statement bordered on contempt as it undermined public confidence in the judiciary and amounted to interference in the administration of justice. Thottathil has since been removed from his position and asked to issue a public apology for the publication. The demand for resignation and the suggestion of finding a replacement for the CJI were inappropriate and should not have appeared on an official party platform,” the response stated.
The bench of justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi said it would examine whether the deleted post, published by the party’s official X account, amounted to contempt of court and issued notice on the petition filed by advocate Vineet Jindal, who sought suo motu contempt action over the post published by INC Keralam on October 12. Following this, SCBA joint secretary Meneesh Dubey issued a legal notice to KPCC president Sunny Joseph on October 16, seeking a response to the post.
The bench said, “Only the Constitution is supreme. No individual or political organisation stands above it,” as it emphasised that the authority of the court rests on the rule of law and does not require “political endorsement”. “Any attempt to undermine it needs to be dealt with an iron hand,” the court held. The bench said, “Our judgments are always open to criticism, but freedom of expression cannot be a shield for intimidation or interference with the administration of justice. The court said it would examine whether the material amounted to contempt of court and sought the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani. Joseph said in his reply, “Neither I nor the leadership had authorised him to demand the resignation of the CJI or to suggest that the organisation would find a replacement. Though the committee admitted that the party’s official account was used for such an “unauthorised communication”, it stated that this did not establish that its contents were approved by the leadership. The response further said, “The KPCC disapproves of, expressly disagrees with and censures the language employed in the post.
“Legitimate criticism must be distinguished from conduct that may undermine the authority of the court or interfere with the administration of justice. Freedom of expression can’t be a shield of intimidation to interfere with the administration of justice. Howsoever high position a person occupies, any attempt to undermine the authority of the court needs to be dealt with an iron hand.”
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,” he further said. Earlier reporting noted: SC issues notice to all office bearers of Keralam unit of Congress over post targeting CJI Surya Kant Observing that independence of the judiciary is not a matter of “political convenience”, the Supreme Court on Friday (November 6, 2026) issued a contempt notice to all office bearers of Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee over a social media post targeting Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. Pancholi said that the Constitution is supreme and no individual or political organisation stands above it.
Earlier reporting noted: A bench of justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Earlier reporting noted: “Judgments are always open to criticism.
