Subscribe
- Latest Legal News
- News
- Dealstreet
- Viewpoint
- Columns
- Interviews
- Law School
- Legal Jobs
- हिंदी
- ಕನ್ನಡ
The Kerala High Court recently sentenced an Ernakulam native to three days in jail for publishing a series of defamatory Facebook posts against judges and also for accusing a judge of acting under the influence of Sangh Parivar [Suo Motu v PK Suresh Kumar].
A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice Jobin Sebastian held PK Suresh Kumar guilty in a criminal contempt of court case initiated suo motu over his repeated defamatory and malicious remarks against High Court judges on social media.
The Court found that Kumar's posts went beyond fair criticism and constituted a deliberate and malicious attempt to scandalise the judiciary and lower its institutional integrity.
"The posts, taken as a whole, are clearly intended to undermine public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of this Court. The insinuation that judgments were rendered at the behest of politically aligned advocates, for the personal advancement of Judges, attributes nothing short of judicial dishonesty and improper motives on the part of the judges of this Court. Such content is likely to deter litigants from trusting the judicial process and will most certainly impair Judges in the discharge of their constitutional duties," the Court said.
This is not Kumar's first brush with contempt of court.
Earlier in 2024, he had tendered an unconditional apology in a separate contempt of court case for making similar allegations against the judiciary on an online news portal.
However, soon after, he again made defamatory posts.
In one of the posts dated March 11, 2024, Kumar alleged that judges on the Devaswom Bench, particularly Justice Anil K Narendran was acting under the influence of 'Sangh Parivar' factions and passing favourable orders to gain political favour with the aim of securing elevation to the Supreme Court.
In another post dated March 17, 2024, Kumar referred to Justice Devan Ramachandran's oral observations as 'verbal diarrhoea'.
The Court concluded that such remarks were not isolated outbursts but formed part of a sustained attempt to discredit the judiciary.
Kumar defended himself by claiming his actions arose from personal anguish and were protected by his right to free speech.
He also stated that others had access to his Facebook account and that the posts were possibly made by unknown individuals.
However, the Court rejected this defence, pointing to his earlier admission of authorship in his counter affidavit and the technical evidence confirming the posts originated from his account.
It found that these posts portrayed judges as politically biased and compromised, amounting to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Court relied upon multiple Supreme Court precedents to emphasise that while judges are open to criticism, imputations of bias or corrupt motives crossed the line into criminal contempt.
"The shoulders of the Court are broad enough to shrug off certain comments and there cannot be any dispute on the same. While fair and temperate criticism is protected, criticism based on distortion, falsehood, and aimed at vilifying the institution cannot be countenanced,“ the Court added.
After pronouncing him guilty, the Court afforded Kumar an opportunity to present mitigating factors.
He submitted that he has a wife and two children and thus pleaded for leniency. However, considering the seriousness of the allegations and his repeated offence, the Court declined his request to suspend the sentence.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Registrar General to issue a warrant for Kumar's detention.
Advocate Dheerendra Krishnan KK was appointed by the Court as the prosecutor in the case.
[Read Judgment]