In a significant move aimed at preserving the dignity and impartiality of the judiciary, the Kerala High Court has initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against R. Rajesh, a former Member of the Legislative Assembly and a syndicate member of Kerala University, for a social media post in which he alleged that judges hearing a matter related to him were ideologically biased and influenced by the Sangh Parivar. The post, made on Facebook, insinuated that the judges were not acting in accordance with principles of justice but were instead swayed by political or ideological leanings.
The matter gained judicial attention during proceedings involving a petition challenging the suspension of the university’s registrar, a matter in which Rajesh had a direct or indirect stake. In the course of those proceedings, Rajesh published a Facebook post that included provocative remarks implying that justice in the High Court was being dictated by ideological considerations rather than by fairness and law. A particularly contentious sentence in the post stated that it was not the goddess of justice who sat in the High Court, but a woman carrying a saffron flag—a clear reference to the Sangh Parivar’s ideological symbols. This statement, as per the court, went far beyond criticism of a judicial decision and directly attacked the integrity and impartiality of the judges themselves.
Taking serious cognizance of the comments, the High Court bench, led by Justice D. K. Singh, observed that the Facebook post amounted to an attempt to scandalize the judiciary and erode public trust in the judicial system. The court emphasized that such remarks, coming from a former lawmaker and public figure, carry weight and have the potential to seriously damage the authority of the judiciary in the public eye. Justice Singh made it clear that while the right to freedom of speech allows for criticism of judgments and public institutions, it does not extend to leveling unsubstantiated allegations of bias or ideological prejudice against sitting judges.
The court explained that it was compelled to act to protect the institution’s reputation and maintain the public’s confidence in the justice system. It invoked its powers under the Contempt of Courts Act and relevant constitutional provisions, stating that courts must act swiftly when confronted with actions that could lower their authority or malign their independence. The Court held that the nature of the statement was not only defamatory but also an affront to the dignity of the court and therefore required immediate intervention.
The bench further directed that Rajesh be issued notice and summoned to appear either in person or through legal counsel to respond to the contempt charges. Two specific charges were framed: first, that the statement was made with the intention of defaming and insulting judges, and second, that it amounted to criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The order reiterated that freedom of expression must be exercised with responsibility, especially when it concerns allegations against the judiciary.
The High Court clarified that its action was not taken based on any private complaint but initiated suo motu, underlining the seriousness with which it viewed the matter. The Court also noted that individuals in positions of influence, such as former lawmakers, have an added responsibility to ensure that their words do not undermine public institutions. By framing the issue as one that goes to the heart of the integrity of the justice system, the Court reinforced the principle that judges must be allowed to perform their duties free from political pressure and public slander.
This development echoes a broader legal principle recognized by Indian courts in the past: while judicial decisions can be critiqued, targeting judges personally or accusing them of political bias without evidence is an offense that crosses the line into criminal contempt. Courts have consistently upheld that baseless attacks on judges can demoralize the institution, interfere with the administration of justice, and mislead the public about the functioning of the judiciary.
In its order, the Kerala High Court also emphasized that courts are not immune to criticism, and robust discussion about judgments is an integral part of a democratic society. However, it distinguished between fair criticism and malicious insinuation. The Court made it clear that the former strengthens democracy while the latter undermines it. It reminded public figures that while freedom of speech is a cherished right, it is not absolute and carries with it a duty to respect institutions that form the backbone of constitutional governance.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court’s suo motu contempt action against R. Rajesh stands as a strong statement in defense of judicial independence. It sends an unmistakable message that while the judiciary welcomes informed and respectful criticism, it will not tolerate baseless accusations that scandalize the institution. The case underlines the judiciary’s role as a neutral arbiter and reinforces the notion that trust in courts must be preserved if democratic principles are to endure. As the matter proceeds, it is likely to spark wider debates about the boundaries of free speech and the accountability of public figures in a constitutional democracy.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.