Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi

New Delhi, Nov 6: The Supreme Court on Friday issued a contempt of court notice to office-bearers of the Congress' Kerala unit over a now-deleted social media post targeting Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, asking them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.

A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi said it considered it appropriate to examine whether the allegations and material placed before it warranted scrutiny under Article 129 of the Constitution, which empowers the apex court to punish for contempt of itself.

"Having regard to the nature of allegations, we consider it appropriate to examine whether the material warrants examination by this Court under Article 129 of the Constitution," the Bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar observed.

The court also requested the Attorney General to assist it in the matter.

During the hearing, counsel appearing for the state Congress submitted that the controversial post had been published without the knowledge or consent of the party's office-bearers and should not have been uploaded.

"Unconditionally we are tendering an apology. Next day, a press release was also issued," the counsel submitted, adding that the post had been deleted on the same day.

Taking note of the submission, the Supreme Court recorded the counsel's undertaking to file an apology over the social media post and scheduled the next hearing for December 15.

The proceedings stem from a complaint-cum-representation filed by advocate Vineet Jindal, who approached the CJI on October 13, seeking consideration of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings over the now-deleted post published by the Congress' Kerala unit on X.

The post had stated: "Dear Surya Kant, If law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it."

In his representation, Jindal urged the CJI to examine whether the post crossed the limits of permissible political criticism and warranted action under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

He also referred to an Opposition protest march and slogan-shouting inside the Supreme Court premises during the filing of a petition by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders. He sought an examination of whether any security restrictions had been violated or the functioning of the apex court obstructed.

The development comes amid a separate criminal contempt matter involving Shiv Sena-UBT Rajya Sabha member Sanjay Raut and senior journalist Nikhil Wagle over their alleged remarks against the CJI.

On October 28, the Supreme Court directed Raut to appear physically before it on November 17, while permitting Wagle to appear virtually on the next date of hearing.

Earlier, the apex court had issued notices to Raut and Wagle on a petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), asking them to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.

The SCBA initiated the proceedings after Raut claimed during a media interaction that he had seen 60 to 70 judges, including the CJI, playing badminton with BJP leaders in London.