Facebook Post Scandalizing Judges is Ex Facie Criminal Contempt, Kerala High Court Initiates Suo Motu Action under S.15 Contempt of Courts Act & Art. 215 - 2025-07-07

Kerala High Court Initiates Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings Against Ex-MLA for 'Scandalizing' Facebook Post

Thiruvananthapuram: The Kerala High Court has initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against R. Rajesh, a former MLA and a current Syndicate Member of the University of Kerala, for a Facebook post that allegedly scandalized the court and interfered with the administration of justice. The order, passed by Justice D. K. Singh, holds that the post prima facie constitutes ex facie criminal contempt, warranting action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 215 of the Constitution.

Background of the Case

The issue arose from a Facebook post dated July 6, 2025, published on R. Rajesh's personal page. The post, written in Malayalam, made serious allegations against the High Court judges presiding over university-related cases. The court noted that Mr. Rajesh, being a Syndicate Member, is directly involved in litigation before the court.

Content of the Allegedly Contemptuous Post

The translated post, as cited in the court's order, contained several provocative statements. It alleged that the High Court bench hearing university cases deliberately appoints "staunch Sangh Parivar supporters." Mr. Rajesh questioned the impartiality of recent judicial decisions concerning the Kerala University, including cases related to the Vice-Chancellor's qualifications, a student representative's appointment to the Senate, and the suspension of the University Registrar.

The post culminated with the question: "Who are some of the people in court with? With the goddess of justice? With the woman carrying the saffron flag....." The court interpreted these statements not as a critique of judgments but as a direct attack on the integrity of the judges, thereby maligning the institution.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Principles Applied

Justice D. K. Singh, in a detailed order, underscored the gravity of the allegations. The court held that the post prima facie amounted to "interference with the administration of justice and scandalising the Court."

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment:

> "The alleged contemnor has stated in the Facebook post that the Bench that hears University cases is headed by staunch Sangh Parivar supporters. He has not criticised the judgments, but criticised the Judges heading the Bench hearing education matters in the language which amounts to scandalising the Court and maligning the reputation of the Judge(s)."

The court emphasized the duty to uphold the "majesty, honour and independence of the institution of justice." Citing the Supreme Court in * M. Y. Shareef and another v. The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and others *, the order condemned the "growing tendency of maligning the reputation of Judicial Officers by disgruntled elements."

> "When there is a deliberate attempt to Scandalize which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system, the damage caused is not only to the reputation of the concerned judge but also to the fair name of the judiciary."

The order invoked the definition of 'criminal contempt' under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 , which includes any publication that "scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court." The court also relied on its plenary powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to punish for its own contempt.

Final Decision and Charges Framed

The High Court concluded that Mr. Rajesh had prima facie committed ex facie contempt. Consequently, it framed two specific charges against him: 1. Intending to defile the image of the Court and cast insinuations and insults on the Judges. 2. Writing the post with the clear intention to bring the Court into disrepute through scandalous and unfounded allegations.

The court has issued a notice to Mr. R. Rajesh, directing him to appear in person or through counsel on July 23, 2025 , to answer the charges. The matter has been directed to be placed before the appropriate bench for further proceedings.