NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has issued a contempt notice to office-bearers of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) over a social media post targeting Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, observing that freedom of expression cannot be used as a shield to interfere with the administration of justice.The apex court said, “Judgments are always open to criticism but freedom of expression can’t be a shield for interference with administration of justice.”“Any attempt to undermine authority of court needs to be dealt with iron hand,” it further said, as cited by PTI.Reiterating the supremacy of the Constitution, the court added, “Constitution is supreme, no individual or political organisation stands above it.”The Supreme Court has registered a petition based on a complaint seeking contempt proceedings against the KPCC over the social media post. According to the apex court’s website, a complaint addressed to the CJI by advocate Vineet Jindal on October 13 was registered as a writ petition on October 30.
Join conversation
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
The complaint also sought directions to authorities to ascertain whether a political demonstration and slogan-shouting held on the Supreme Court premises on the evening of October 12, 2026, involving Rahul Gandhi and other political leaders, took place without authorisation or caused any obstruction to the movement of advocates, litigants, judicial officers or court staff.A post targeting the CJI from the official Congress Kerala account on X went viral on October 12, drawing sharp criticism on social media, before being deleted. The party subsequently removed the person responsible for publishing it.In a statement, KPCC president Sunny Joseph said the person responsible for posting the controversial message on the party’s official X account had been removed from the charge. He clarified that the post was made without the knowledge, consent or consultation of the KPCC leadership.Joseph also said the Congress party had no disagreement with regard to the impartiality of the judiciary.