Kerala High Court sentences man to 3 days in jail for accusing judges of Sangh Parivar influence

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]