The Kerala unit’s president has told the Supreme Court Bar Association’s Joint Secretary that a post on the party’s X handle demanding the Chief Justice’s resignation was unauthorised and that the person responsible has been removed. The Kerala Congress apology to CJI Surya Kant came in reply to a legal notice.
New Delhi: Responding to a legal notice from Supreme Court Bar Association Joint Secretary Advocate Meneesh Dubey, the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) has issued a Kerala Congress apology to CJI Surya Kant, unconditionally apologising for a post on the official X handle of Congress Kerala on October 12, 2026 that called for his resignation [Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee reply to legal notice].
The reply carries the signature of KPCC President Sunny Joseph. No court proceeding is involved in the notice and its reply, and the Chief Justice has not commented on the apology.
What the KPCC says
The reply says the post was published by Vijay Thottathil without the knowledge, approval or consultation of the party leadership, who had authorised neither a demand for the Chief Justice’s resignation nor a suggestion of a replacement. He has been removed from his position and asked to issue a public apology, it says, and Joseph did not personally direct, approve or endorse the post. According to the reply, the expressions used do not represent the policy, considered opinion or authorised position of the KPCC or the Congress, and the leadership expressly withdraws them. On the apology itself, the KPCC said:
unequivocally reaffirms its respect for the Constitution, the independence of the judiciary and the office of the Chief Justice of India
The notice that prompted the reply
Advocate Dubey’s notice put three questions to Joseph. It asked him to disclose the identity and designation of the person who wrote and published the post and of anyone who approved it, to explain why no express public apology had been given to the Chief Justice, and to give details of any reprimand or disciplinary action beyond removal from position.
The post of October 12 and the petition that followed
The post appeared on the day Opposition leaders marched to the Supreme Court over the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Addressed to the Chief Justice, it said he should resign if law and order was not his responsibility. It was later deleted, and bar bodies, including the Supreme Court Bar Association, condemned calls for the Chief Justice’s resignation.
A group of advocates then moved the Supreme Court, seeking criminal contempt action against the Congress, its leaders and the KPCC over the post, along with guidelines against political campaigns aimed at pending proceedings. According to the petition, the posts sought to pressure the Chief Justice, while the Constitution prescribes the procedure for removing a judge. On October 15, a Bench of the Chief Justice and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on the prayers other than criminal contempt, for which no notice was issued, and directed preservation of CCTV and digital footage.
The contentions in the petition are those of the petitioners and are untested, and the respondents’ position will be placed on record in their responses.
Oversight of the party’s social media
The KPCC separated criticism of judicial decisions from language that undermines the dignity expected in public discourse, saying political disagreement cannot justify the latter. It acknowledged weaknesses in its digital communication oversight and said it would examine who has access to its social media accounts, how official communications are approved, and how the post was drafted, reviewed and published, including who was involved, account permissions and devices used.
It also undertook to preserve electronic records, access logs, approval records and internal communications, saying removal of the post from public view should not destroy material relevant to any lawful inquiry, and noted that engaging an external agency for digital communications does not remove the need for effective oversight.
No court has weighed the apology
The apology answers a legal notice and is not a finding by any court. The contempt petition in the Supreme Court is separate, and the Court has said it will decide its course after responses are filed. Whether the apology has any bearing on that petition is a matter for the Bench, and no view is expressed here.
Matter: Legal notice by Advocate Meneesh Dubey, Joint Secretary, Supreme Court Bar Association, and reply of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee through its President Sunny Joseph
Date of apology: October 27, 2026
Related proceeding: Digant Mishra and Others v. Union of India and Others [W.P.(C) No. 1360/2026], notice issued October 15, 2026 by a Bench of the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi