The Kerala High Court has asked how Expunging Trial Judge’s Remarks can be ordered when they appear not to be on the judicial record, while conveying that “this Court has full faith in her as a lawyer” to the advocate who represented the survivor in the 2017 actress assault case.
Kochi: On Wednesday, November 4, the Kerala High Court asked Advocate T.B. Mini, who represented the survivor in the 2017 actress assault case, to show how remarks allegedly made about her by the trial judge could be expunged when they did not appear to form part of the judicial record [T.B. Mini v. The Hon’ble Registrar General and Ors.].
Her writ petition, seeking contempt action against the trial judge, Honey M. Varghese, was heard by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan. The Court’s remarks were oral, no order on the merits has been passed, and the matter is posted for further consideration on Friday.
Reassurance from the Bench
Before adjourning, Justice Kunhikrishnan addressed the petitioner’s standing at the Bar:
“Convey to your client that this Court has full faith in her as a lawyer. This Court knows her capacity.. I am sure that all the judges in this High Court knows her capacity.. She need not worry.”
The remark at the centre of the petition
The petition stems from a remark the trial judge allegedly made, describing Mini as an “absent lawyer” who had appeared in court for fewer than 10 days. Mini says she attended more than 200 days of the trial. The allegation is the petitioner’s and has not been adjudicated; the judge’s response is not part of the hearing record so far.
“From where should I expunge?”
The Bench returned more than once to whether the alleged remarks were reflected anywhere in the proceedings:
“Is it part of the judicial proceedings?…From where should I expunge the remarks if its is not there…”
On the media publications, the Court asked what relief it could give when the media organisations were not parties to the writ petition, and pointed to the Press Council of India as the proper forum: “If this is against media publication, you should approach the Press Council of India.”
What the petitioner’s counsel argued
Counsel for Mini said she had suffered severe mental trauma and reputational damage over ten months following the alleged remarks and the media coverage that followed, with members of the public allegedly urging that cases not be entrusted to her. Counsel also questioned the propriety of a presiding officer making such remarks in the presence of media representatives, argued that judicial officers must exercise restraint, and referred to Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The petition seeks directions on the remarks, removal of media reports and protection of her professional reputation. Counsel clarified that the grievance against the media was secondary and the primary grievance concerned the judicial officer’s alleged conduct, relying on the settled tests for judicial observations: whether the party’s conduct was relevant, whether evidence on record supported the remark, and whether it was necessary to decide the case.
Why the hearing matters
Expunction is a remedy courts apply to words in orders and judgments. The hearing exposes the gap when an allegedly hurtful remark is made in open court but never recorded, and the harm travels through media reports instead. How the High Court treats a contempt plea against a judicial officer on that basis, and whether it directs the media dispute to the Press Council, will be watched by lawyers who appear in high-profile trials. The Court has not ruled on the merits.
Case Title: T.B. Mini v. The Hon’ble Registrar General and Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) 37581/2026
Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, Kerala High Court
Date of Hearing: November 4, 2026
Next Date: Friday, November 6, 2026
