New Delhi : The Supreme Court of India on Friday, November 6, issued a contempt notice to office-bearers of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) over a controversial social media post targeting Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant.

A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi took a strong view of the matter, warning that attempts to undermine the dignity and authority of the judiciary cannot be tolerated, irrespective of political affiliations.

Court Reaffirms Primacy of the Constitution

Emphasising the importance of judicial independence, the bench observed that the Constitution stands above every individual, institution and political organisation.

“The Constitution is supreme,” the court declared, stressing that judicial independence is a constitutional guarantee and not something that can be subjected to political interests or convenience.

The judges further cautioned that deliberate efforts to weaken the authority of the judiciary must be dealt with an “iron hand”.

How the Controversy Began

The proceedings relate to a social media post published by the KPCC handle criticising oral observations made by CJI Surya Kant during hearings concerning petitions over Delhi Police action against protesters during Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) demonstrations in the national capital.

The post triggered strong reactions from members of the legal fraternity. Both the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) condemned political statements calling for the CJI’s resignation.

Apology Fails to End Contempt Proceedings

Following the backlash, the KPCC removed the controversial post and issued an apology. The party also claimed that the staff member responsible for uploading the content had been terminated.

However, the Supreme Court decided to examine the matter further despite the retraction and apology.

The bench appointed a senior advocate as amicus curiae to assist the court in determining whether the actions attract civil or criminal contempt. It also sought assistance from Attorney General R. Venkataramani.

The proceedings underline the Supreme Court’s concern over public attacks on judicial institutions and the constitutional responsibility to safeguard the independence and authority of the judiciary.