Kerala High Court Sentences Man In Contempt Case Who Alleged That Devaswom Bench Judges Were Functioning Under Influence Of “Sangh Parivar”

The Kerala High Court has sentenced a man in a contempt case who alleged that the Judges comprising the Devaswom Bench were functioning under the influence of the “Sangh Parivar” and other external agencies, and that Judgments were being rendered to appease such factions.

The Court initiated the suo-motu proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (CCA) against the contemnor for publishing contemptuous and intemperate remarks against Judges through various posts on social media platforms.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed, “In the present case, as noted earlier, the respondent has made serious and scurrilous allegations against the learned Judges of this Court, accusing them of having passed judicial orders for their personal advancement and with improper motives. Such allegations strike at the very foundation of the judicial institution and constitute gross contempt of court.”

The Bench held that the contemnor committed criminal contempt by scandalizing the Court with mala fide intent and is therefore, guilty under Section 12 of CCA.

Advocate Dheerendra Krishnan K.K. appeared for the Petitioner while the Respondent P.K. Suresh Kumar appeared in person.

Factual Background

Earlier, suo-motu contempt proceedings were initiated against the Respondent-contemnor for making derogatory and scandalous statements against a Judge of the High Court through the online new portal “Marunadanmalayali.com.”. Those proceedings were triggered by social media posts authored by the contemnor, which were found to be intended to scandalise the Court, undermine its authority, and interfere with the administration of justice. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the contemnor tendered an unconditional apology and the Bench being satisfied, accepted the same and discharged him. However, shortly thereafter, the contemnor resumed activity on social media using the same profile “facebook.com/sureshkumaar.pk”—from which the earlier contemptuous posts had originated.

He proceeded to publish a series of fresh posts in rapid succession. In the first of these posts, he openly recounted the strategy he had adopted to evade punishment in the earlier contempt proceedings, suggesting that the apology tendered therein was merely a tactical ruse and not a genuine expression of remorse. In a subsequent post, he alleged that the Judges comprising the Devaswom Bench of the Kerala High Court were functioning under the influence of the “Sangh Parivar” and other external agencies, and that Judgments were being rendered to appease such factions. He further claimed that the Senior Judge of the Bench was motivated by a desire to curry favour with certain institutions outside the Collegium system of the Supreme Court in pursuit of elevation.

He also made serious allegations that lawyers affiliated with the Sangh Parivar were frequenting the chambers of the Judge and exerting undue influence in Devaswom related matters by offering inducements. In a Facebook post, he attributed improper motives to another sitting Judge, alleging that the Judge had publicly endorsed the Sangh Parivar and participated in events organised by such groups, purportedly to secure favour from them. Thereafter, he published another post wherein he accused a Judge of acting under political compulsions with the intent to suppress or whitewash investigations carried out by Central Investigating Agencies against a State Minister. Subsequently, he wrote a post characterising oral observations made by a Judge in open Court as “verbal diarrhoea.” Hence, the suo-motu contempt proceedings were initiated against him.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “… the posts made by the respondent, as detailed in the preceding paragraphs, cannot be regarded as mere criticism of judicial decisions. In his counter affidavit, the respondent reiterated serious allegations, that lawyers aligned with a particular political dispensation entered the Chamber of a Judge and that orders were passed based on their inputs. However, instead of substantiating these claims in evidence, he took a totally different stand and denied authorship of the posts altogether. We have already held that this prevaricating stand, by admitting authorship of the posts in pleadings and disowning it during evidence, reflects an absence of candour and a shifting, unreliable defence. It is thus clear that the respondent neither stands by his assertions nor did he make any conscious attempt to justify his stand.”

The Court remarked that the posts, taken as a whole, are clearly intended to undermine public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the Court and the insinuation that Judgments were rendered at the behest of politically aligned Advocates, for the personal advancement of Judges, attributes nothing short of judicial dishonesty and improper motives on the part of the Judges of the Court.

“Such content is likely to deter litigants from trusting the judicial process and will most certainly impair Judges in the discharge of their constitutional duties. The shoulders of the Court are broad enough to shrug off certain comments and there cannot be any dispute on the same. While fair and temperate criticism is protected, criticism based on distortion, falsehood, and aimed at vilifying the institution cannot be countenanced”, it noted.

The Court added that the comments made by the Respondent cannot be categorised as isolated or inadvertent remarks and as a matter of fact his conduct reveals that the comments are deliberate, malicious, and suggesting ideological bias undermining the honesty and judicial competence and impartiality of Judges and consequently of the Court.

Conclusion

The Court further observed, “Significantly, these posts were published even after the respondent had tendered an unconditional apology in the earlier contempt proceedings. We are, therefore, firm in our conclusion that the respondent’s conduct falls squarely within the scope of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”

The Court, therefore, sentenced the Respondent to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) days and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-

Cause Title- Suo Motu v. P.K. Suresh Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:52378)

Click here to read/download the Judgment