Kerala High Court: In a criminal contempt proceeding against Congress MP Kumbakudi Sudhakaran, the Division Bench of Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and K.V. Jayakumar, JJ. held that a genuine, unconditional and unqualified apology, coupled with an admission of contempt and an assurance of future restraint, warranted acceptance under Rule 14(a), Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988. The Court accepted the apology tendered by him, discharged him, and closed the contempt proceedings.
Background
The proceedings arose from a public speech delivered by Congress MP Kumbakudi Sudhakaran, on 3 August 2019. During the speech, he made remarks concerning the Judges who had decided a case regarding the murder of Youth Congress worker. He allegedly described the judgment using derogatory language and made statements that scandalised the Court and lowered its dignity and authority.
Aggrieved by these remarks, the petitioner sought sanction from the Advocate General under Section 15(2), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to initiate criminal contempt proceedings.
On 30 April 2021, the Advocate General granted sanction after concluding that Sudhakaran’s statements amounted to scandalising the Court. The Court subsequently issued notice to the respondent on 5 February 2024.
During the hearing on 19 June 2026, Kumbakudi Sudhakaran expressed regret for the statements made during his extempore speech and informed the Court that he intended to tender an unconditional and unqualified apology. The Court directed him to appear personally and file an affidavit admitting the contempt and tendering his apology.
Kumbakudi Sudhakaran appeared before the Court in person and filed an affidavit stating that:
1. the impugned expression was made spontaneously in a moment of anger and frustration;
2. there was no deliberate or malicious intention to defame or scandalise the judiciary;
3. he held the High Court and the judiciary in the highest esteem;
4. upon reflection, he realised that the words used were inappropriate;
5. he sincerely, unconditionally and unqualifiedly apologised for the remarks; and
6. he assured the Court that he would exercise greater restraint and caution in the future.
After considering the affidavit and Kumbakudi Sudhakaran personal submissions, the Bench found that:
1. the apology was bona fide and genuine;
2. he acknowledged the impropriety of his conduct;
3. the statement was an isolated utterance rather than a deliberate attempt to undermine the authority or dignity of the Court; and
4. the apology satisfied the requirements of Rule 14(a).
The Court observed that Rule 14(a), Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988 permits the Court to pass appropriate orders where a respondent admits the contempt and tenders an unconditional apology.
The Court accepted his unconditional apology and discharged him. Consequently, the criminal contempt proceedings were closed.
[Janardhana Shenoy K. v. Kumbakudi Sudhakaran, CONT.CAS.(CRL.) NO. 2 OF 2024, decided on 8-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Surin George Ipe
For Respondents: P. Martin Jose, V. S. Chandrasekharan, Viju Thomas, Thomas P. Kuruvilla, Ajay Ben Jose, Manjunath Menon, Sachin Jacob Ambat, Harikrishnan S., R. Githesh, S. Sreekumar (Sr.)
