The Supreme Court issued contempt notices to Kerala Congress office-bearers on Friday over a social media post targeting CJI Surya Kant. The bench stressed, “The Constitution is supreme; no individual or political organisation stands above it.” The party claimed the post was unauthorized and said they already issued an apology.

The Supreme Court issued contempt notices to Kerala Congress office-bearers over a deleted social media post targeting CJI Surya Kant, questioning the party's apology.

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to office-bearers of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC), including its president and secretary, seeking their response on why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them over a now-deleted social media post targeting Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi was hearing a writ petition filed by advocate Vineet Jindal, seeking suo motu action over a post published on the official X account of the Indian National Congress’ Kerala unit.

The post, which appeared on October 12, 2026, was addressed to CJI Surya Kant and read, “Dear Surya Kant, If law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it."

Taking serious note of the matter, the Supreme Court underscored the supremacy of the Constitution and the independence of the judiciary, observing that no individual or political organisation could claim to be above the constitutional framework.

“The Constitution is supreme; no individual or political organisation stands above it. Independence of the judiciary is not a matter of political convenience," the bench said.

The court further observed that while judicial decisions could be criticised, freedom of expression could not be used as a shield to intimidate the judiciary or interfere with the administration of justice.

“Freedom of expression cannot be a shield for intimidation or interference with the administration of justice," the bench stated.

It also cautioned that any attempt to undermine the authority of courts would be dealt with strictly, irrespective of the influence wielded by the individuals involved.

“A court’s strength lies in the rule of law, not in political support," the bench observed, adding that judicial restraint should not be mistaken for institutional weakness.

“Judicial restraint must never be mistaken for institutional weakness," the court said.

KERALA CONGRESS SAYS POST WAS UNAUTHORISED

During the hearing, counsel appearing for the Kerala Congress committee told the court that the disputed post had been uploaded without the knowledge, consent or approval of the party’s office-bearers.

The counsel submitted that the post was deleted immediately after it came to the leadership’s attention and that an unconditional apology had subsequently been issued. The party also informed the court that it would file an unconditional apology.

Responding to the submission, Justice Aravind Kumar remarked that the court would examine whether the apology was genuine.

“We will see if the apology is from the heart or just from the pen," the court observed.

The KPCC had earlier maintained that the post was uploaded by a party worker without authorisation. The individual responsible was stripped of responsibilities, while party president Sunny Joseph had also expressed regret over the post in response to a legal notice issued by a Supreme Court lawyer.

SC SEEKS ASSISTANCE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

The bench directed that notices be issued to all office-bearers of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee, including its president and secretary, asking them to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The court exempted the office-bearers from personal appearance at this stage.

It also indicated that it would examine whether the matter warranted the exercise of its powers under Article 129 of the Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of itself.

The bench further indicated that it might appoint senior advocates Arvind Datar and Siddharth Agarwal as amicus curiae to assist it in the proceedings. The Attorney General was also requested to assist the court.

The Supreme Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter at this stage.

The court reiterated that criticism of judicial judgments was permissible, but attempts to obstruct or undermine the functioning and authority of the judiciary could not be justified in the name of freedom of expression.