Statements undermining the judiciary and attributing improper motives to judges constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, warranting strict action to uphold judicial authority.

JUDGMENT :

1. In Rustom Cowasjee Cooper vs Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1318 while ordering the initiation of contempt proceedings against the contemnor, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, speaking through Hidayatullah, C.J., made the following observations:

“While fair and temperate criticism of this Court or any other Court, even if strong, may not be actionable, attributing improper motives, or tending to bring Judges or Courts into hatred and contempt or obstructing, directly or indirectly, the functioning of Courts is serious contempt of which notice must and will be taken. Respect is expected not only from those to whom the judgment of the Court is acceptable but also from those to whom it is repugnant. Those who err in their criticism by indulging in vilification of the institution of Courts, the administration of justice, and the instruments through which the administration acts, should take heed, for they act at their own peril.”

2. The present proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (“the Act” for the sake of brevity), have been initiated under Section 15 of the Act against the respondent for publishing contemptuous and intemperate remarks directed at the Judges of this Court through various posts on social media platforms.

3. It is relevant to note that earlier, suo motu contempt proceedings had been initiated against the respondent for making derogatory and scandalous statements against a Judge of this Court through the online news portal “Marunadanmalayali.com.” Those proceedings were triggered by social media posts authored by the respondent, which were found to be intended to scandalise the Court, undermine its authority, and interfere with the administration of justice.

4. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the respondent tendered an unconditional apology. A Bench of this Court, being satisfied that the apology conformed to the requirements of Rule 14(a) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules 1988, accepted the same and accordingly discharged the respondent.

5. However, shortly thereafter, the respondent 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.

6. In the first of these posts, dated 09.03.2024, the respondent 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.

7. In a subsequent post dated 11.03.2024, the respondent alleged that the Judges comprising the Devaswom Bench of this 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in pursuit of elevation. The respondent also made serious allegations that lawyers affiliated with the Sangh Parivar were frequenting the chambers of the learned Judge and exerting undue influence in Devaswom related matters by offering inducements.

8. In a Facebook post dated