New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday (November 6) issued contempt notices to office-bearers of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC), including its President Sunny Joseph, over a now-deleted social media post targeting Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant.A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi was hearing a petition filed by advocate Vineet Jindal, seeking action over the post published on the official X account of the Indian National Congress’ Kerala unit, @INCKerala, on October 12, 2026.The post, addressed to the CJI, had stated: “If law and order is not your domain, resign. We will find your replacement who can handle it.”The controversy began when CJI Surya Kant refused to meet a delegation of Opposition leaders, including the leader of opposition Rahul Gandhi and party president Mallikarjun Kharge on October 12. They had sought to raise with him their concerns over Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists.The CJI said the matter was sub judice and suggested they approach the court through a petition. Hours before this, the CJI had remarked, while speaking to reporters on the sidelines of an event in the national capital, that the protests against the CEC and the restrictions imposed on protesters were a “law and order issue”.He said, “Ye law and order ka mudda hai. Ye mera vishay nahin hai.” (This is a law-and-order issue. It does not fall within my domain).Following this, Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) leader Sanjay Raut had alleged that judges attended political events of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and dinners hosted by chief ministers. Meanwhile, journalist Nikhil Wagle also posted an abusive remark against the CJI.The top court, on October 16, issued notices to Wagle and Raut after the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) had approached the court saying they should be held in contempt for their remarks against the CJI. Wagle had deleted the post and apologised.Also read: LoP Rahul Gandhi Moves Supreme Court Challenging ECI’s SIR ExerciseThe Kerala Congress had also deleted its post and apologised for the remark on October 22, after it had received a legal notice from Meenesh Dubey, joint secretary, SCBA. Dubey had subsequently dropped the case.The current contempt plea is being pursued by another advocate, Vineet Jindal, who seeks criminal contempt charges against KPCC officers. His petition was filed before the Supreme Court on October 13.During the hearing on Friday, the counsel for KPCC submitted that the post had been uploaded without the knowledge or approval of the party leadership. It was subsequently deleted and an unconditional apology issued, reports Live Law. The party also said that the worker responsible for the post had been stripped of responsibilities.However, Justice Aravind Kumar indicated that the court would scrutinise the sincerity of the apology, observing, “We will examine if the apology has come from the pen or the heart.”In its order, the bench strongly emphasised the constitutional importance of judicial independence, making it clear that freedom of expression cannot extend to intimidation or interference with the administration of justice.“The constitution is supreme. No individual or political organisation stands above it. Independence of the judiciary is not a matter of political convenience,” the court observed, as per the Live Law report.The court also noted that while judicial decisions remain open to criticism, attempts to undermine the authority of the courts must be dealt with firmly. “Judicial restraint must never be mistaken for institutional weakness.”The court directed all KPCC office-bearers, including its president and secretary to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It exempted them from personal appearance and indicated that it would examine whether the matter warranted the exercise of its powers under Article 129 of the constitution.The bench also indicated that it may appoint Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Siddharth Agarwal as amici curiae to assist it, while requesting the Attorney General to extend assistance. Clarifying that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the matter, the court said that it would consider whether contempt proceedings were warranted.