The Supreme Court issued notice in the suo motu matter concerning the objectionable post published by the official X handle of INC Kerala against Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, calling upon all office bearers of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) to show cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be initiated.

The Bench appointed a Senior Advocate as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and requested the Attorney General to assist as well, observing that it was appropriate to examine whether the material warranted the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 129 of the Constitution of India.

The Court had registered the matter on its own motion as a writ petition. Vineet Jindal and Sreejesh S.R. are the Petitioners, and the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee was arrayed as the Respondent.

On October 12, 2026, the official verified X handle INC Kerala had published an alleged objectionable, derogatory, and intimidating post directed against the Chief Justice of India. The contemptuous tweet was deleted after widespread criticism.

The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi ordered, "The present matter concerns certain remarks directed against the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, attributed to the social media account of a political organisation. The Constitution is supreme. No individual, no institution, and no political organisation stands 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. Judgments are always open to criticism, however severe. But freedom of expression cannot become a shield for intimidation or interference with the administration of justice. Howsoever high a position a person may occupy, that person cannot be allowed to pollute the stream of justice. Judicial restraint must never be mistaken for institutional weakness. Any attempt to undermine the authority of the Court requires to be dealt with [an] iron hand."

The Court added, "The authority of this Court requires neither political endorsement nor approval from any quarter. It rests upon the Constitution and the rule of law. Where interference with the administration of justice is established, the law must take its course, irrespective of the identity or influence of those who are responsible. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, we consider it appropriate to examine whether the material warrants the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 129 of the Constitution of India. Hence, we hereby appoint Shri so and so, learned Senior Advocate, as amicus curiae to assist the Court on the questions arising for consideration, and to examine whether criminal contempt or civil contempt requires to be initiated on the facts obtained herein, for being brought under the umbrella of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. We also request the learned Attorney General to assist the Court."


Senior Advocate Ramesh Babu appeared for the Respondent

Babu submitted, "I accept notice. The impugned post was uploaded on the official site without the approval or consent of the office bearers. Unconditionally, we are tendering an apology. There is no difficulty. On the same day it came to the notice of the Committee, it was taken down. The next day, a press release was also issued. I will bring all those things before your Lordships. I will file an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology also."

The Court remarked that it would examine whether the apology came from the pen or from the heart. Respondent assured the Court that the apology would be tendered sincerely and from the heart.

The Court ordered, "Hence, issue notice to the office bearers of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee, to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be initiated...At this juncture, we do not propose to confine our order of issuing notice only to the President, but also to all the office bearers of the contemnor. We accordingly issue notice to all the office bearers of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee, for whom Subhash Chandran and Kavitha Law Associates accepts notice and waives service of notice. Notwithstanding the acceptance of notice, since this is in contempt jurisdiction, notice is being issued. We direct the Registry to issue notice to all the office bearers."

Babu prayed that a copy of the papers be furnished to him as well, which the Court allowed. He further requested that his statement, that an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology would be filed, be recorded. The Court assured him that the same would be noted.

He submitted that the office bearers were very large in number, comprising the President, Vice Presidents, Secretaries, Treasurers and Joint Secretaries, totalling more than forty to fifty persons. The Court observed that such a number was not unusual before the Supreme Court and directed that they be present and file their responses.

Jindal had written a letter/representation to the Chief Justice seeking consideration of appropriate action in accordance with law concerning a public social-media publication by Congress Kerala, together with the reported political demonstration and associated slogan-shouting in connection with the premises of the Court on 12 October 2026.

That Congress Kerala (@INCKerala), through its official social-media account, published a statement directly addressing the Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, saying, “Dear Surya Kant, If law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it.”

Recently, a request was also made by Advocate-on-Record Savita Singh seeking consent under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to Initiate Criminal Contempt Proceedings against Sunny Joseph, President, Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC), Indian National Congress and social media administrators over the post.

It was also reported that Supreme Court Bar Association Joint Secretary Meenesh Dubey had also issued a legal notice to KPCC President Sunny Joseph, demanding an explanation for the post.

Jindal requested that the competent authority consider preserving and examining the relevant material, wherever available, inter alia, including the original social-media publication by Congress Kerala, its URL, date and time of publication, account details, surrounding statements and available electronic records; relevant CCTV footage covering the entrances, access-controlled areas and other locations connected with the reported demonstration.

It was submitted that the impugned publication be examined in its complete factual and legal context, and that the Court consider whether it warranted action under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India.

Cause Title: Vineet Jindal & Anr. v. Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee [W.P.(C) No. 1431/2026]

Tags: