The Kerala Congress, in a post on X, insulted the CJI by suggesting he lacked the competence and integrity required of people in the domain of the law. Worse yet it said it would find a 'replacement' for him.
This was the post.
"Dear Surya Kant, If law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it.
Since no political party can remove or replace a Supreme Court Judge. The Bench is demanding to know why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against the party. The Keral Congress says the person responsible has been sacked. They do not condone the post in any way.
Batty Bhatia takes issue with what has happened.
Putting Contempt into a Torture Rack: the Supreme Court’s Notice to Kerala Congress
November 7, 2026 Gautam BhatiaLeave a comment
The Supreme Court is not known to be friendly to criticism.
Yet, it hears review petitions every day which criticise its previous findings.
Its expansive interpretation of the Contempt of Courts Act and its deployment of the colonial concept of “scandalising the court”
It is a British concept. Britain is not a colony. Nor is India. By the doctrine of autochthony adopted by framers of the Constitution, all extant laws are considered indigenous. Incidentally, England & Wales got rid of 'scandalising' a judge, but the offence remains in Scotland.
has placed a vast domain of speech under the shadow of illegality.
It was always under that shadow. We don't want judges to be insulted and intimidated because we feel this might undermine the rule of law.
However, even by these existing standards, the Court’s decision to issue notice to all the office-bearers of the Kerala State Congress Unit for a tweet is a disquieting encroachment into the domain of core, protected speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
It is of no consequence. Congress has apologised. They may make some further declaration to the same effect.
If a demand to sack a judge goes beyond criticizing a judgment and instead targets the judge's personal integrity, it falls under Criminal Contempt (specifically, "scandalizing the court" under Section 2(c) of the Act). The most recent, relevant case, is In Re: Justice C.S. Karnan (2017). Before that, there was C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta (1971)Hitherto, even under its expanded understanding, the Court had continued to trace the basis of the contempt offence to the observation of the Constitution Bench in Aswini Kumar Ghose vs Arabinda Bose,
A case from 1952 about the 'dual system' which existed at that time. On 30 October 1952, The Times of India published a leading editorial titled "A disturbing decision." The article strongly criticized the Supreme Court's decision to dismantle the dual system, asserting that the Judges had "strained the law" and allowed themselves to be influenced by "politics and policies."
The Supreme Court issued a contempt notice against the newspaper’s Editor, Printer, and Publisher, ruling that attributing improper political motives to judges lowered the dignity of the court and undermined public confidence in the justice system. The respondents acknowledged they had exceeded legitimate bounds of criticism and tendered an unreserved, unconditional apology. Accepting their sincere regret, the Court dropped the proceedings without imposing punishments.namely spreading the impression that “Judges in the highest Court in the land act on extraneous considerations in deciding cases.”
Which is a milder offence than saying that your party will remove and replace the judge even though it lacks the numbers in parliament to vote for impeachment. Thus, the meaning is that some illegal method will be used to punish and replace the CJI>
In D.C. Saxena,
a nutter demanded that a Judge who decided against him be sacked and stripped of his citizenship! He was sent to jail.
the Court likewise differentiated between criticising judgments and “attributing motives” to judges. The 2006 amendment to the Contempt of Courts Act subsequently clarified that the contemptuous statement had to be one that “substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice.”
Which is the case if a political party is trying to force the CJI to resign so they can replace him with someone more to their taste.
Even in the notorious Prashant Bhushan case – which this blog previously declined to analyse – appropriately abstract observations were made about “shak[ing] the public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the administration of justice.”
The Court chickened out. It should have sent Bhushan to jail.
On the one hand, it may be argued that this kind of doctrine is so vague – and so utterly subjective – that virtually any kind of criticism can be taken to be “shaking public confidence in the fairness and impartiality” of the courts, because that determination is purely a matter of opinion.
The Bench doesn't think it is too vague. It is they who have the authority to make it less so.
However, even if we take it to be so, the allegedly offending statement in the present case appears to fall well outside its scope.
Appears to whom? Not the Bench and not the Kerala Congress. What is batty Bhatia's locus standi?
In response to the Chief Justice of India observing that he was not responsible for maintaining law and order,
That is the responsibility of the Executive.
the Kerala Congress handle tweeted – firmly tongue in cheek, as should be obvious to just about anyone with a functioning antenna for humour – that “Dear Surya Kant, If law and order is not your domain,
it is because actions of the Executive are subject to judicial review. This isn't humour. This is batty Bhatia level stupidity and ignorance.
resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it.”
Does the law permit the Kerala Congress to replace judges? No. I suppose one could say the remark falls below the threshold for sedition because it is so silly, but not below the threshold for contempt.
This is not attribution of motive, it is not questioning of integrity or fairness, and it stretches credulity to the breaking point to suggest that it “shakes the public confidence in the … impartiality of the administration of justice.”
It isn't a particularly serious matter. Like the 1952 case re. the Times of India, a fulsome apology will suffice.
and while everyone with the aforementioned functional antennae can see it for what it is – a rather soft jibe at a judge – there is, however, something even more important at stake here: whether tongue in cheek or not, calling for a public official to step down is at the very core of the democratic free speech guarantee; indeed, it is the very mildest form of critique of their functioning that can possibly be offered.
No. It may be sedition or involve contempt of court if a judge is the target. There is a procedure for removing politicians or judges from office. Assassination or Revolution may do so but the would-be assassin or the revolutionary may be arrested and imprisoned before he can acachieve anything
There can be no conceivable reason why judges should be immune from this form of critique,
The reason is that judges who fear for their lives, will not try to restrain politicians. Kerala Congress is under Rahul Gandhi. Everybody knows what his gradmother got up to in the mid-Seventies.
or why they should seek to punish it by using contempt powers.
Judges gain by punishing those who malign them. Batty Bhatia may be very happy when peole threaten to kill and replace him, but that is because he is as stupid as shit.
Disturbingly, the Kerala Congress appears to have already admitted guilt by firing their social media person and apologising for the tweet;
Batty Bhatia is deeply disturbed. You'd have to be utterly mad to hire him as a lawyer.
that the Supreme Court has nonetheless chosen to issue notice with the observation that they will verify whether the apology comes from the “pen or the heart” (how will anyone ever determine that?)
The Judges will. If I say 'I don't believe you', it is implied that I can change my disbelief into belief under some set of circumstances.
and deal with this with an “iron hand” is even more disturbing, because it suggests that we are at the edge of a slippery slope
Only in the sense that we always have been. Why have judges? Suppose a judge sentences you to prison? Won't you feel annoyed? Why not get rid of judges and police and armies and governments? Also let us get rid of the Sun because it may get too hot and then we will feel uncomfortable.
where even the boundary between (impermissible) “attribution of motive” and (permissible) critique of a judge is blurred to the point of nothingness.
No. I can say Judge X's ratio is wrong because it ignored a binding staturtory provision. In legal jargon, the ruling is per incuriam. I should not say Judge X's ratio is wrong because he was bribed or because hates people of my religion.
How are you allowed to criticise the Court, then?
You are welcome to say the Court is elitist or deracinated or inefficient. If you consider a particular judge incompetent or corrupt, produce evidence. Under the 2006 Contempt Amendment Act, Truth is a defence.
The answer, probably, is that you’ll only find out when you get that contempt notice.
When in doubt, ask a lawyer. Just make sure it isn't batty Bhatia.
No comments:
Post a Comment