Kerala High Court Closes Contempt Case Against News Channel Directors For Airing Scandalous Remarks On Judges, Accepts Their Apology

Accepting the unconditional apology made by the directors, the Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed:

“Under Rule 14(a) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988, if the respondents tender an unconditional apology after admitting that they have committed the contempt, the Court may proceed to pass such orders as it deems fit… After hearing the respondents as well as the learned counsel, we are satisfied that the apology tendered by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is bona fide and in consonance with the requirements of Rule 14(a)…”

The present case was suo motu initiated after a news report dated 05.05.2024 appeared on a Malayalam web-based news channels–Karma News, broadcasting certain statements made by one P.C. Jose (respondent no. 1 ) in an interview. The court had initiated the suo-motu contempt against Jose, the MD and Director of Galaxy Zoom India Private Limited which runs Karma News and another respondent. 

The broadcast carried the caption that Mr. P.C. Jose is a “human rights activist,” and alleged that, since he had instituted proceedings to make the provisions of the Indian Penal Code applicable to Judges, Magistrates, and other Judicial Officers, he was wrongfully detained in a mental asylum and false criminal cases were maliciously foisted upon him. 

In the course of the interview, he had also made statements that he had himself constituted a court and had issued an order to a high court Judge directing implementation of provisions of the Constitution. He further declared that, upon the said Judge's alleged failure to comply, he had purported to sentence the Judge to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 Crore

He had further alleged that the judges of the High Court secured appointments through payment of money and rendered its decisions as dictated by politicians. It was even stated that the Courts are 'nothing more than “bootlickers of the British.”'

"The above statements, made publicly and disseminated through a mass-media channel, are not only false and scurrilous but are also calculated to scandalise the Court, to lower its authority in the eyes of the public, and to erode public confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary. The tenor, content, and mode of dissemination of these allegations, on the face of it, constitute prima facie criminal contempt within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971," the order notes. 

The court in its 19.07.2024 order noted that a "prima facie case of criminal contempt" was made out and issued directions for issuance of notice to the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act.

It was then brought to the court's notice that Respondent no.1 was a person who had undergone prolonged treatment at the Mental Asylum at Oolampara; the court had thus decided not to proceed against him. 

The court had thereafter discharged the respondent no. 2, after noting that he had been nominated as a director of Karma News, only on 29.09.2024, long after the airing of the programme.

Thereafter the court had on 29.05.2025 impleaded respondents 3 and 4–the Managing Director and Director of Galaxy Zoom India Private Limited which runs Karma News and notice was issued.

The MD and the Director first entered appearance through counsel tendering their unconditional apology and requested that their apology be accepted in absentia; but this was rejected and they were directed to appear in person before this Court for consideration of their prayer to offer unconditional apology. 

Pursuant to this the MD and Director appeared in person and stated in their affidavit that they are not physically available to manage the affairs of the news channel as they live abroad.  

They also stated that they had no knowledge about the news item in question, but as directors they take responsibility on the act of the news channel and tendered their unconditional apology before the high court. 

After considering the unconditional apology tendered by them in person and through affidavit, the Court found it fit to close the contempt proceedings.

Case No: Cont. Cas. (Crl.) No. 4 of 2024

Case Title: Suo Motu v. P.C. Jose and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 564

Counsel for the respondents: Jijo Thomas – R2, Luke J. Chirayil – R3 & R4, M.D. Beena

Click to Read/Download Judgment