Contempt action against Congress and others is what four advocates have asked the Supreme Court to initiate over social media posts calling on CJI Surya Kant to resign. The plea has not yet been listed, and the Court has expressed no view.
New Delhi: Seeking criminal contempt proceedings against the Congress party and others, and guidelines to stop political parties from running public campaigns against a judge over pending matters, four advocates have approached the Supreme Court over social media posts that called on Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to resign. The plea also seeks a direction to the Union government.
The petitioners are Advocates Digant Mishra, Divyansh Bisht, Ashish Gopal Garg and Shweta Garg, who have filed through Advocate-on-Record Utkarsh Jaiswal. No Bench has taken up the petition yet, and its case number is not yet available. The Court has expressed no view on it.
What is sought, and from whom
The petition prays for guidelines barring political parties from running public campaigns targeting a judge or the Chief Justice over pending matters, outside the constitutional procedure for removal. It also asks for directions to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the respondents after notice and a hearing. The respondents named are the Union of India, the Indian National Congress, Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee, Mahua Moitra and Akhilesh Yadav.
The posts cited
According to the petition, the Kerala unit of the Congress posted on X on October 12: “Dear Surya Kant, If law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it.” It adds that Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra posted the same evening: “Surya clearly Can’t. So we will.” These are the posts as cited in the petition, and the respondents’ position on them is not yet on record.
The petitioners’ case
The petitioners contend that the post addressed the Chief Justice by name without his title, and that it was an attempt to pressure a sitting CJI who had declined to discuss sub judice matters outside the courtroom. They argue that Articles 121 and 124(4) of the Constitution lay down the exclusive procedure for removing a judge of the Supreme Court, so a public demand for resignation, coupled with a claim that a party would find a replacement, cuts across that scheme and the constitutional process of judicial appointments.
The petition also cites the resolutions of the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association condemning the calls for the CJI’s resignation.
Where the line may be drawn
The plea asks the Court to separate political criticism of the judiciary, which is part of public debate, from calls that the petitioners say interfere with the administration of justice. Whether the posts amount to criminal contempt, and whether the Court should frame guidelines for political parties, will be for the Bench to decide after it hears the petitioners and the respondents. The respondents have not yet filed a response, and nothing in this report is a finding on the conduct alleged.
Case Title: Digant Mishra and Others v. Union of India and Others [petition filed through AOR Utkarsh Jaiswal; case number and listing awaited]
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Filing Report: October 13, 2026
Appearances: Advocate-on-Record Utkarsh Jaiswal for the petitioners