Registered as a civil writ petition on October 30 but not yet listed, a lawyer’s letter on the Kerala Congress Post Against CJI Surya Kant carries its own caution: the mere holding of a peaceful demonstration “does not, by itself, establish contempt of court or any other offence.” The Supreme Court has issued no notice and has expressed no view.
New Delhi: Advocate Vineet Jindal’s letter of October 13 to the Chief Justice of India, which seeks criminal contempt action against the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) over a social media post addressed to Chief Justice Surya Kant, was registered by the Supreme Court registry as a civil writ petition on October 30. It is yet to be listed for hearing [Vineet Jindal Letter Petition, registered as Civil Writ Petition].
No Bench has taken up the matter so far. Registration only places the letter on the Court’s record as a writ petition. The Court has not issued notice, has not heard any party and has expressed no view on whether the Kerala Congress post against CJI amounts to contempt.
The post, and the party’s answer to it
The post appeared on the official X handle of the Kerala Congress on October 12, the day of an opposition march connected with the Supreme Court premises, and was deleted soon after it went up. It read:
“Dear Surya Kant, If law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it.”
The KPCC has since tendered an unconditional apology to the CJI. In a reply dated October 22 to a legal notice sent by Supreme Court Bar Association Joint Secretary Meenesh Dubey, KPCC President Sunny Joseph stated that the post was published by party worker Vijay Thottathil without the knowledge, consent or consultation of the party leadership, and that Thottathil had since been removed from his position.
What the letter asks the Court to examine
In the letter, Jindal argued that the office of the Chief Justice of India “cannot be treated as one whose continuance is subject to the approval or displeasure of any political organisation.” He asked the Court to consider whether the post stayed within the limits of permissible political criticism or called for action under the law of criminal contempt.
The letter also refers to the political demonstration connected with the Supreme Court premises on October 12, which involved opposition leaders. It seeks an examination of whether any restricted area was entered without authorisation or whether any security protocol was breached, and asks for CCTV footage, access-control logs and security deployment records to be preserved so that any inquiry would rest on reliable evidence.
Jindal himself, however, cautioned against treating the protest as contempt by default. The letter states:
“The mere holding of a peaceful demonstration, the raising of political slogans at a lawful location or the presence of political leaders in the vicinity of the Supreme Court does not, by itself, establish contempt of court or any other offence.”
The Bench that issued notice on October 15
A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi had issued notice on October 15 to the Congress party, Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders on a petition filed by four lawyers concerning the October 12 march. That petition had also sought contempt action over the Kerala Congress post, but the Bench declined to issue notice on that prayer. The CJI had then remarked:
“No contempt today. We are only issuing notice. Let us see what the response is, and then we will take it forward.”
The parties named in that petition have yet to respond before the Court, and the contentions on both sides remain untested.
What registration does, and what it leaves open
Under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, criminal contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court can begin on the Court’s own motion, on a motion by the Attorney General or Solicitor General, or on a motion by any other person with the written consent of the Attorney General or Solicitor General. A letter to the CJI does not by itself start contempt proceedings; registration as a writ petition only means a Bench will eventually decide whether to entertain it and in what form.
Two concerns meet in the matter: the protection of judicial office from attacks meant to lower its authority, and the space for political criticism of judges and their decisions. With the KPCC having apologised and disowned the post, and a Bench having already declined contempt notice on the same post once, how the Court treats this letter will be closely watched.
Case Title: Letter Petition of Advocate Vineet Jindal (registered as Civil Writ Petition)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Letter dated: October 13, 2026
Registered: October 30, 2026
Status: Yet to be listed before a Bench