Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, in a suo motu criminal contempt proceeding, accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the directors of a news channel and discharged them from liability. The Court held that reckless and scandalous allegations disseminated against the judiciary through mass media constitute prima facie criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, taking note of the bona fide apology and assurances of preventive measures, the Bench decided to close the contempt case without further action.

The contempt proceedings originated suo motu from a news report dated 5 May 2024, aired by Karma News, a Malayalam web-based news channel. The broadcast contained excerpts from a press conference addressed by Mr. P.C. Jose, who was introduced as a human rights activist. During the press conference, Mr. Jose alleged that he had instituted proceedings to make provisions of the Indian Penal Code applicable to Judges and Magistrates but was wrongfully detained in a mental asylum and falsely implicated in criminal cases.

Also Read: Supreme Court Launches ‘Project Ability Empowerment’, Raises Concern Over Denial of General Seats to Higher-Scoring Disabled Candidates

He further claimed to have constituted a self-styled “constitutional court” and issued an order to a Judge of the Kerala High Court, purportedly sentencing the Judge to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of one crore rupees for alleged non-compliance. Mr. Jose also accused Judges of yielding to political and religious pressures, purchasing appointments through payments, and disparaged the judiciary as “bootlickers of the British.”

The Court noted that such allegations, broadcast to more than one million subscribers, were false, scurrilous, and calculated to scandalise the Court and diminish public confidence in the judiciary. On 19 July 2024, finding prima facie evidence of criminal contempt, the Bench issued notices to the respondents under Rule 9(ii)(b) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988.

Subsequently, it emerged that Mr. Jose had undergone prolonged treatment at a mental asylum, leading the Court not to proceed against him. The second respondent, an officer associated with Karma News, was found to have been appointed only after the impugned broadcast and was similarly discharged. In May 2025, based on Ministry of Corporate Affairs records, the Court impleaded the Managing Director and Director of Galaxy Zoom India Pvt. Ltd., the company operating Karma News, as additional respondents.

The Bench recorded that the allegations telecast through the channel were scandalous and contemptuous: “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.”

Referring to the role of the media, the Court stated: “Irrespective of the status and competence of the 1st respondent, the News Channel broadcasting his views should have exercised editorial discretion and ought to have refrained from airing such scandalous, contumacious and manifestly contemptuous allegations against the judiciary or an individual judge. The freedom of the press, while sacrosanct, carries with it an equally weighty responsibility. Media platforms cannot become conduits for vilifying the judiciary or undermining public confidence in the administration of justice. Such reckless dissemination of derogatory and unverified assertions strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law and cannot be countenanced.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court Defers Verdict in Cheque Dishonour Case | Magistrate Fixed Judgment Without Supplying Copy of Order Rejecting Plea to Reopen Evidence

The Court also noted the affidavits of the third and fourth respondents, wherein they accepted responsibility as directors despite their physical absence from India and affirmed: “We take responsibility on the act of the news channel. I am expressing my unconditional apology before this Hon’ble Court. I shall duly be vigilant on all matters and further publications by the news channel.”

Invoking Rule 14(a) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988, the Bench recorded: “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.”

“We accept the unconditional apology tendered by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, and they are accordingly discharged. We have decided not to proceed against the 1st respondent and have discharged the 2nd respondent, as he was not in charge and responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the business of Galaxy Zoom India Pvt. Ltd., which runs Karma News. This Contempt Case is closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Smt. M.D. Beena
For the Respondents: Shri. Jijo Thomas; Shri. Luke J. Chirayil

Case Title: Suo Motu Contempt of Court (Criminal) against P.C. Jose & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:66770
Case Number: Cont. Case (Crl.) No. 4 of 2024
Bench: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, Justice K.V. Jayakumar