A Supreme Court advocate-on-record (AOR) has sought the Attorney General’s consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) president Sunny Joseph and those responsible for managing the party’s social media account over a post on X calling for Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to resign.
In an application dated October 16, advocate Savita Singh has requested written consent from Attorney General R Venkataramani under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.
The complaint relates to a post published on October 12 by the Congress Kerala account on X, which criticised the CJI’s position on law-and-order issues and demanded his resignation, suggesting that another person could take over the responsibility. The post was subsequently deleted.
Singh has alleged that the language used in the post was derogatory towards the head of the judiciary and had the potential to undermine public confidence in the Supreme Court. She has contended that the remarks warrant scrutiny under Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, which covers publications that scandalise or tend to scandalise, or lower or tend to lower, the authority of a court.
The application argues that publicly demanding the resignation of a sitting CJI, particularly in the context of matters pending before the Supreme Court, could be construed as an attempt to undermine judicial independence and exert pressure on the institution. It also invokes Article 129 of the Constitution, under which the Supreme Court, as a court of record, possesses the power to punish for contempt of itself.
The controversy emerged after Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge reportedly sought an appointment with the CJI to submit a memorandum concerning protests against the Chief Election Commissioner and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The CJI declined the request, reportedly observing that the issues were already before the Court and that a separate meeting to discuss them would be inconsistent with judicial propriety and the separation of powers. The Congress Kerala post followed the ensuing controversy over the CJI’s position and remarks concerning the protests.
Singh has further referred to the constitutional safeguards governing the removal of judges, arguing that demands to replace the CJI must be viewed against the prescribed legal framework. Article 124(4) of the Constitution stipulates that a Supreme Court judge can be removed only through the constitutionally mandated parliamentary process on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
The controversy has also prompted responses from members of the legal fraternity. Supreme Court Bar Association Joint Secretary Meenesh Dubey reportedly issued a legal notice to Joseph on October 17, seeking an explanation over the absence of a public apology and warning of possible contempt action.
Joseph has reportedly maintained that the controversial post was published without the knowledge or approval of the state party leadership. The party is also reported to have removed the person responsible for uploading the message.
The request for the Attorney General’s consent represents a preliminary step towards initiating criminal contempt proceedings. No finding of contempt has been made against Joseph or the other persons named in the application.
The post Supreme Court AOR seeks AG’s consent for criminal contempt action against Kerala Congress Chief over post asking CJI to resign appeared first on India Legal.