Nobody Is Above Law | Kerala High Court Summons Ex-CPM MLA Rajesh In Criminal Contempt Case | Court Says Facebook Post Scandalised Judges And Threatened Judicial Independence
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, on 7th July 2025, initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against a former Member of the Legislative Assembly and Syndicate Member of the University of Kerala. The Court observed that the Facebook post published by the alleged contemnor on 6th July 2025 constituted a prima facie act of ex facie criminal contempt by scandalising the Court and interfering with the administration of justice. Pursuant to this finding, the Court issued notice and directed the alleged contemnor to appear before it on 23rd July 2025.
The Court concluded that the Facebook post's content not only lowered the authority of the Court in the eyes of the public but also aimed at maligning the character of the Judges presiding over matters concerning higher education. Citing statutory provisions and constitutional authority, the Court invoked its powers under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India and relevant High Court Rules, to frame formal charges against the contemnor.
The proceedings arose when the High Court took judicial cognizance of a Facebook post-dated 6th July 2025 authored by a former MLA and current Syndicate Member of the University of Kerala. The post, written in Malayalam and later translated into English by the Court, made several allegations regarding the functioning of the judiciary in matters related to higher education in Kerala.
The Facebook post contained references such as: "The goddess of justice sits in the High Court, not a woman carrying a saffron flag. Let the country judge for whom your decisions are made." The Court considered this post not as criticism of judgments but as direct allegations against the Judges themselves.
The author accused the High Court of partisan behaviour, stating: "The High Court bench that hears university cases deliberately appoints staunch Sangh Parivar supporters. The verdict is given in the High Court considering cases related to higher education..." The post alleged that judicial decisions were politically motivated and influenced by affiliations with right-wing ideologies.
Specific cases mentioned included the appointment of an interim Vice Chancellor (VC), Dr. Mohan Kunnummal, to the University of Kerala. The author questioned the legality of this appointment by stating that Dr. Kunnummal was over the age limit of 65 and lacked the requisite 10 years of experience as a professor.
In another instance, the post referred to a case where a student representative over the age of 30 was appointed to the University Senate. The author questioned the prolonged delay in delivering a verdict, suggesting political bias influenced judicial inertia.
A third case involved the suspension of the Registrar of Kerala University. The author alleged that the Vice Chancellor lacked the statutory authority under Section 10(13) and 10(14) of the University Act to suspend the Registrar and accused the judiciary of overlooking these prima facie legal violations.
On the day of the order, a writ petition filed by Professor Dr. K.S. Anil Kumar, the Registrar in question, challenging the suspension was listed before the same Bench. The petition was withdrawn as the Syndicate had reinstated the Registrar. Nevertheless, the Court found the Facebook post to contain "wild and unsubstantiated allegations... lowering the prestige and majesty of the Courts in the eyes of the general public."
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh recorded that: "The Facebook post of the alleged contemnor prima facie amounts to interference with the administration of justice and scandalising the Court."
The Court acknowledged the contemnor’s public status by noting: "The alleged contemnor is not only the former MLA of the State Legislative Assembly but also a Syndicate Member of the University of Kerala."
Addressing the scope of judicial independence, the Court remarked: "Nobody is above the law, and everybody is under an obligation to adhere to the rule of law... it will do more harm to the system if deviations are allowed in the name of convenience or leniency."
On the sanctity of the judiciary, the Court stated: "Dispensation of justice is treated as a power which would have been exercised by the King as a representative of God. It is treated as a divine power."
"A divine power does not mean compassion to the wrongdoer... The power to do justice includes the power of punishment." the order stated, underlining the necessity for accountability.
Quoting Lord Diplock, the judgment recorded: "Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these three requirements or to undermine the public confidence that they will be observed is contempt of court."
The Court cited Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court, stating: "Sub-clause (iii) is a residuary provision by which any other type of obstruction or interference with the administration of justice is regarded as a criminal contempt."
Further referencing Balogh v. St. Albans Crown Court, the Court reiterated: "Contempt in the face of the Court is the same thing as contempt which the Court can punish of its own motion... It is a necessary power."
On malicious attacks against the judiciary, the Court quoted M.Y. Shareef v. Judges of Nagpur High Court: "Veiled threats, abrasive behaviour, use of disrespectful language and at times blatant condemnatory attacks... are often designedly employed with a view to taming a judge into submission to secure a desired order."
Finally, the Bench recorded: "The Court is at pains to act against the alleged contemnor, but it is also conscious of its duties and responsibilities to protect the institution of the High Court and to maintain purity and sanctity in the administration of justice."
The Court held that: "Sri R. Rajesh, Ex-MLA and Syndicate Member of the University of Kerala, has prima facie committed ex facie contempt of the Court by writing the Facebook post mentioned above on 06.07.2025."
It declared that the language and allegations used in the post amounted to "scandalising and lowering the authority of this Court and interference with due course of judicial proceedings."
Invoking Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, along with Rule 164(2) of Chapter XII of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, the Court framed the following charges:
(i) You, Mr. R. Rajesh, Ex-MLA and Syndicate Member of the University of Kerala, by writing the Facebook post on 06.07.2025 on your Facebook page, have clearly intended to defile the image of the Court, cast insinuations and insult to the Judges heading the education Bench.
(ii) You, Mr. R. Rajesh, Ex-MLA and Syndicate Member of the University of Kerala, have written the Facebook post on 06.07.2025, with the clear intention to bring the Court into disrepute by making scandalous and unfounded allegations in intemperate language. Your ex-facie contemptuous writing on Facebook as envisaged under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines criminal contempt that makes you liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Court directed the alleged contemnor as follows: "You are hereby called upon to answer the aforesaid charge in person or through counsel and be present yourself to be tried on 23.07.2025."
The Registry of the High Court was directed to take procedural steps to ensure appearance: "The Registry is directed to number this suo motu contempt case against the alleged contemnor. Let notice be issued to Mr. R. Rajesh, Ex-MLA and Syndicate Member of the University of Kerala, alleged contemnor for his appearance before this Court on 23.07.2025 at 10.15 a.m. Let the contempt case be posted before the appropriate Bench, with orders from the Hon’ble Chief Justice."
Case Title: Suo Motu v. R. Rajesh
Case Number: Contempt Case (Crl.) No. 1 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
