Kerala High Court Closes Suo Motu Contempt Case Against Ex-MLA R Rajesh Over Alleged Facebook Post Against Judges

The division bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K V Jayakumar allowed the discharge application.

The contempt case had been initiated by a single judge of the High Court through an order dated July 7, 2025. It was alleged that the respondent made a Facebook post on July 6, 2025, containing derogatory remarks against judges presiding over the education bench. The post was deemed as an attempt to defame the judiciary and undermine the dignity of the court.

When the matter came up for hearing, the respondent was directed to appear in person. He complied with the court's directive, and the matter was heard in detail.

During the hearing, Senior counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the contempt proceedings were initiated in violation of the Contempt of Court Rules of the Kerala High Court. It was contended that the learned single judge not only initiated the proceedings but also framed charges and issued notice, all before the matter was placed before the Chief Justice for allocation to the appropriate bench.

Referring to Rule 7(2) of the Contempt of Court (Kerala High Court) Rules, counsel submitted that the initial Facebook post which formed the basis of the contempt proceedings should have been placed before the appropriate bench for a preliminary hearing, which did not happen. The counsel further cited the Supreme Court's decision in Muthu Karuppan v Parithi Ilamvasthuthi, emphasizing that strict adherence to procedural rules is mandatory in contempt proceedings.

The defense also relied on the Kerala High Court's own precedent in Suo Moto v Yeshwant Shenoy, [2024 KLT Online 2591], which held that procedural lapses in contempt matters, if incurable, would render the proceedings fundamentally flawed.

It was also submitted that under Rule 9 (1) of the Contempt of Court (High Court of Kerala) Rules, all petitions or information regarding contempt must be placed before a division bench, and notices must be issued using Form No. 1, which was not adhered to in this case. Moreover, the charge was framed by the single judge instead of the Registrar (Judicial), allegedly violating Rule 7(3).

After hearing arguments and perusing the records, the Division Bench observed that the procedure adopted in initiating the contempt proceedings was in clear violation of the prescribed rules. The Court concluded that the violations were "manifestly incurable" and struck at the root of the legal sanctity required for contempt proceedings.

Consequently, the Court allowed the application for discharge filed by the respondent and quashed the contempt proceedings.

Case Title - Suo Motu v R. Rajesh

Case No - Cont.Cas.(Crl.) 1/ 2025

Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 483

Counsel for the Respondent - P Deepak (Sr.),  Rilgin V George

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment