The Kerala High Court on 8 July 2026 disposed of the contempt case bearing number Cont.Cas.(Crl.) 2/2024, which had been filed against Congress MP K Sudhakaran for remarks allegedly made concerning the Division Bench that had earlier set aside a direction for a CBI inquiry into the murder of Youth Congress worker Shuhaib. The Bench, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K V Jayakumar, recorded that the respondent appeared in person before the Court and tendered an unconditional apology for the statements attributed to him.
The controversy originated from the Division Bench’s order that vacated a single‑bench direction seeking a CBI investigation into the killing of Shuhaib on 12 February 2018. The single bench had considered the allegations of political enmity and directed the Central Bureau of Inquiry to probe the incident. The Division Bench, after hearing the State’s appeal, set aside that direction. Subsequently, the Supreme Court also declined to entertain a plea seeking a CBI probe. In the aftermath of these judicial determinations, Sudhakaran, while addressing a public gathering, reportedly described the Division Bench’s judgment as “disgraceful” and made further remarks that were perceived as derogatory towards the judges constituting the Bench.
The petitioner, Janardhana Shenoy K, invoked the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court, alleging that the remarks amounted to scandalising the court and thereby undermining its authority. In response, the counsel for Sudhakaran submitted that the MP regretted making the extempore comments, insisted that there was no intention to defame, malign or cast any aspersion on the integrity, impartiality, dignity or authority of the Court or its judges, and sought permission to tender an apology.
Upon considering the submissions, the Court directed Sudhakaran’s personal appearance to enable him to purge the contempt. The respondent complied with the direction, appeared before the Bench and offered an unconditional apology. The Court then examined the applicability of Rule 14(a) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988, which stipulates that if a respondent tenders an unconditional apology after admitting that he has committed contempt, the Court may pass such orders as it deems fit.
The Bench observed that the apology tendered by Sudhakaran was bona fide and genuine, and that it conformed to the requirements of the aforementioned rule. The Court expressly stated, “After hearing the respondent and the learned counsel, we are satisfied that the apology tendered by the respondent is bona fide and genuine and is in consonance with the requirements of Rule 14(a) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988. In that view of the matter, we accept the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent, and he is discharged.”
By accepting the apology, the Division Bench exercised its discretion to close the contempt proceedings without imposing any further penalty. The order effectively discharged the respondent from the contempt liability, thereby concluding the matter.
The decision underscores the High Court’s approach to contempt where a genuine expression of remorse is presented. It highlights the statutory mechanism under Rule 14(a) that allows the Court to contemplate closure of proceedings upon receipt of an unconditional apology, provided the Court is satisfied of its sincerity. The ruling also reflects the balance the Court seeks to maintain between protecting the dignity of the judiciary and affording an opportunity for contemnors to atone for their utterances.
In practical terms, the closure of the case means that no further punitive measures, such as fines or imprisonment, will be imposed on Sudhakaran for the remarks in question. The order serves as a precedent for similar future instances where a contemnor voluntarily tenders a sincere apology, demonstrating the Court’s willingness to resolve contempt matters through remedial rather than punitive avenues when the statutory conditions are met.