Criticism Aimed At 'Vilifying' Institution Unacceptable: Kerala High Court Sentences Man To 3 Days Imprisonment For Derogatory FB Posts On Judges

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday sentenced P.K. Suresh Kumar to three days' simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹2,000 for making a series of Facebook posts containing "contemptuous and intemperate remarks" against sitting judges of the High Court.

The proceedings, initiated suo motu by the Court, were presided over by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice Jobin Sebastian. This is the second time Kumar faced contempt proceedings. In the first instance, he had been discharged after tendering an unconditional apology for similar remarks. However, in March 2024, he resumed publishing inflammatory content on Facebook, openly admitting in one post that his earlier apology was a tactical ploy to avoid punishment.

Among the most serious allegations was a claim that judges of the Devaswom Bench were influenced by the “Sangh Parivar” and issued rulings to curry favour with politically affiliated lawyers. In another post, Kumar described oral remarks made by a judge in open court as “verbal diarrhoea.”

Adv. Dheerendra Krishnan, appointed to conduct the prosecution, submitted that the Facebook posts by the respondents are contemptuous, reckless, libellous, and made with intent to interfere with the administration of justice. He submitted that the content of the posts was calculated to undermine the integrity and dignity of the court.

Kumar, who represented himself in the contempt proceedings, attempted to invoke the defence of truth under Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and initially admitted authorship of the posts in his counter affidavit. However, he later reversed course during oral arguments, claiming he had lost his phone and someone else could have accessed his Facebook account.

The Court rejected this shifting defence, noting that the respondent “neither stands by his assertions nor did he make any conscious attempt to justify his stand.” The judges held that the posts “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 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 comments made by the respondent cannot be categorised as isolated or inadvertent remarks. “ Court observed

Reliance was placed on various decisions including, Supreme Court Bar Association v Union of India [(1998) 4 SCC 409], and In Re: S. Mulgaokar [(1978) 3 SCC 339] to lay down the jurisdiction of contempt of court. Citing the Supreme Court's warning in Het Ram Beniwal v. Raghuveer Singh [(2017) 4 SCC 340], the Court reiterated that “casting scurrilous and objectionable remarks against Judges, and attributing improper motives to those discharging judicial functions, amounts to criminal contempt and falls outside the protective ambit of free speech.”

The Court remarked that comments made by the respondent cannot be categorised as isolated or inadvertent remarks. “His conduct reveals that the comments are deliberate, malicious, and suggest ideological bias undermining the honesty and judicial competence and impartiality of judges and consequently on this Court.” Court added

In declining the respondent's plea for suspension of sentence, the Court remarked that “in view of the antecedents of the respondent and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to exercise the said discretion in his favour.”

The Kerala State Legal Services Authority has been directed to receive the fine, and the Registrar General has been instructed to ensure Kumar's detention as per the warrant.

Case Title - Suo Motu v P K Suresh Kumar

Case No - Cont. Case (Crl) 3 of 2024

Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 425

Click Here To Read/Download Order