The Supreme Court registered the complaint-cum-representation submitted by Advocate Vineet Jindal, which sought consideration of criminal contempt proceedings in respect of a social-media publication by Congress Kerala (@INCKerala) addressed to the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant.

The Court 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.

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.”

The letter said, "That the aforesaid publication expressly calls upon the incumbent Chief Justice of India to resign and further states that the political organisation concerned would find a replacement capable of handling the issue of law and order. The statement, having been published by a political organisation through a public social-media platform and directed at the holder of the highest judicial office in the country, raises a question as to whether, when examined in its complete factual and legal context, it remains within the bounds of permissible political criticism or warrants consideration under the law relating to criminal contempt of court."

It said that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a constitutional judicial office and cannot be treated as one whose continuance is subject to the approval or displeasure of any political organisation.

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.

The letter further added, "That I further bring to the attention of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India the reported political demonstration and slogan-shouting by Congress leaders and other opposition leaders in connection with the Supreme Court premises on 12 October 2026, reportedly involving Rahul Gandhi and other political functionaries. The reported events raise concerns regarding the preservation of the dignity, security and orderly functioning of the Supreme Court premises. The Court is a constitutional institution where Hon’ble Judges, advocates, litigants, court staff, security personnel and other authorised persons must be able to discharge their respective duties without unlawful obstruction, intimidation or disruption."

The letter said that the Court is a constitutional institution of exceptional national importance, functioning within a secured environment governed by access-control arrangements, security protocols and restrictions intended to protect the Judges, judicial officers, advocates, litigants, court staff and all other persons lawfully present within its premises.

"The reported events of the evening of 12 October 2026, involving a political demonstration and slogan-shouting in connection with the Supreme Court premises, raise serious concerns requiring verification as to whether the prescribed security arrangements were maintained and whether any security protocol was violated...If any person entered a restricted or prohibited area without authorisation, obstructed security personnel, breached an applicable security restriction or interfered with the movement of authorised persons, the circumstances would warrant examination and such action as may be permissible under the applicable law. Any such conclusion, however, must be founded on verified evidence and the actual facts of the incident", it said.

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. 

"The impugned social-media publication and any independently established unlawful or disruptive conduct connected with the reported demonstration may be examined, if the Hon’ble Court considers it appropriate, to determine whether the ingredients of criminal contempt are prima facie disclosed. Such examination must take into account the constitutional protection afforded to legitimate criticism, the complete context of the publication and the applicable legal threshold", it was submitted.

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.

Accordingly, Jindal had prayed to consider taking the present complaint cum-representation on record for consideration in accordance with law; examine whether the publication made by Congress Kerala, when viewed in its complete factual and legal context, prima facie warrants consideration under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

It was prayed, "I further respectfully request that the reported political demonstration and slogan-shouting in connection with the Supreme Court premises on the evening of 12 October 2026, reportedly involving Rahul Gandhi and other political leaders, be examined by the competent authority to ascertain the actual location, nature and circumstances of the events. I request that the competent authority examine whether any restricted area was entered without authorisation, any lawful security instruction was violated, any obstruction to the functioning of the Court occurred, or any interference with the movement of advocates, litigants, judicial officers or court staff was caused."

Further, it was requested that appropriate action under the applicable law be considered if any unlawful conduct, contempt of court or violation of security restrictions is established through reliable evidence and due process.

Accordingly, the Court will now list the matter.

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

Click here to read/download the Letter/Representation

Tags: