SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 2467

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
D. K. SINGH, J.
Suo Motu - Appellant 
Versus 
R.Rajesh, Ex M.L.A And Member Of Syndicate, University Of Kerala - Respondent 
SUO MOTU CONTEMPT CASE (CRIMINAL) No. 1 OF 2025
Decided on : 07-07-2025

Public figures are not exempt from scrutiny under contempt law; scandalizing remarks undermine judicial authority and may invoke legal consequences.

Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(c) - Criminal contempt - Allegations made against the court's integrity via social media posts by a public figure, amounting to scandalizing the court and interfering with proceedings - Allegations included criticism of judges' impartiality regarding university matters and misleading claims about qualifications of university officials - Court determined the post constituted prima facie criminal contempt. (Paras 1, 4, 12, 13)

(B) Rule of Law - No individual, including public figures, may undermine the authority and integrity of the judiciary through unsubstantiated claims - The Court reaffirmed its duty to uphold the justice system's purity and independence, emphasizing the necessity of adequate punishment for such contempt. (Paras 5, 5.2)

(C) Powers of the High Court - The High Court may punish for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, highlighting its role in maintaining judicial authority and independence. (Paras 8, 12)

Facts of the case:
A former MLA and Syndicate Member of the University of Kerala published a Facebook post making unsubstantiated allegations against the judiciary, which the court determined to be ex facie criminal contempt.

Findings of Court:
The court held the alleged contemnor to have prima facie committed contempt by scandalizing the court and interfering with judicial proceedings.

Issues: The primary issues involved determining whether the Facebook post constituted contempt of court through scandalous claims and its potential to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that public figures must refrain from making allegations that undermine judicial credibility, reaffirming its role to protect the integrity of the justice system.

Result: The court framed charges against the alleged contemnor and issued a notice for his appearance.

Table of Content
1. allegations of contempt via social media (Para 1 , 2)
2. criticism of court composition amounts to contempt (Para 4)
3. integrity of the judiciary must be upheld (Para 5)
4. definition of criminal contempt and judicial authority (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
5. protection of judicial independence is paramount (Para 11)
6. court's duty to address contempt (Para 12)
7. finding of contempt and consequences (Para 13 , 14)

ORDER :

D. K. SINGH, J.

RE: Mr R Rajesh,

ExMLA and Member of Syndicate,

University of Kerala, Palayam,

Thiruvananthapuram :

Alleged Contemnor

This Court has come across the Facebook post of the alleged contemnor, dated 06.07.2025, which clearly indicates that he had committed ex facie criminal contempt of the Court. The Facebook post of the alleged contemnor prima facie amounts to interference with the administration of justice and scandalising the Court. The alleged contemnor is not only the former MLA of the State Legislative Assembly but also a Syndicate Member of the University of Kerala. The University and Syndicate are litigants before this Court in a number of cases.

2. The Facebook post dated 06.07.2025, which has been written in Malayalam on the Facebook page of the alleged contemnor, on being translated into English, would read as under:

“The goddess of justice sits in the High Court, not a woman carrying a saffron flag.

Let the country know whose path some of you are following...

Let the country judge for whom your decisions are made.....

The Center is trying to destroy and control the higher education sector of Kerala....

They take different approaches to this.

1. Chancellors are tasked solely with politically controlling universities.

2. They appoint Vice Chancellors of their choice without even considering their qualifications....

Can’t you question this?

That is where the biggest interference is being made by the Centre. The High Court bench that hears university cases deliberately appoints staunch Sangh Parivar supporters.

The verdict is given in the High Court considering cases related to higher education...

Sangh Parivar Those who are interested...

Let’s look at some recent rulings.

Case 1 Mohan Kunnummal, who is holding the temporary charge of the VC of Kerala University, is the only doctor working in the health field. He is 68 years old.

What is the legal qualification to become the VC of the University of Kerala?

To become a Vice Chancellor, one must have 10 years of experience as a professor.

Must not be over 65 years of age.

But does Mohan Kunnummal have these 2 qualifications to become the Vice Chancellor of the University of Kerala?

(a) Not only does he not have ten years of experience, he is not a professor.

(b) The Chancellor granted the reappointment when he turned 68 after the age of 65.

What was the verdict on the petition filed by the eligible persons questioning this matter?

While considering the petition, the court accepted the argument that the interim VC did not have these qualifications, and why did it allow the interim VC to continue in office?

The only reason is that the interim VC is a Sangh Parivar member.

Did the goddess of justice or the woman carrying the saffron flag win here?

Case 2 The law states that a student representative appointed to the University Senate must be under 30 years of age.

How long has the verdict been postponed on the petition challenging the admission of a person over 30 years of age to the Senate?

Would it be wrong to suspect that the delay is due to the verdict against the right-wing representative?

Case 3

What happens in the registry case?

(a) Does the VC have the power to suspend the Registrar of the University of Kerala?

* No.

The appointment of the Registrar is made entirely by the Syndicate.

(b) What is the method taken by the VC to suspend the Registrar at present?

* If any urgent non-policy decision needs to be taken during the meeting of 2 syndicates in the university, the VC can decide as per Section

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top