The Supreme Court of India has reiterated its stern stance against frivolous appeals and the misuse of social media platforms to scandalize judicial proceedings. In ********. v. ****** & Anr., a Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan dismissed a Special Leave Petition challenging a routine remand order in a maintenance proceeding, while simultaneously issuing a contempt notice to the petitioner for intemperate social media publications.
Procedural Background
The dispute originated from maintenance proceedings in M.C. No. * of 20**, pending before the Family Court, ********, Kerala.
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court against the final judgment and order dated 27-01-2025 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in RPFC No. */2024**. The High Court had simply remitted the matter back to the Family Court with a direction to decide the quantum of maintenance within a time-bound period of three months.
"Having considered the matter in its entirety and going through the material on record, and the fact that the challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by the High Court by which the matter has only been remitted to the Family Court to decide the quantum of maintenance, that too, within three months, we find the present matter to be totally misconceived."
Holding the challenge to be entirely baseless, the Bench dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Scandalous Facebook Posts and Suo Motu Contempt
During the hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondents invited the Court's attention to an interlocutory application (I.A. No. **/2026) seeking vacation of an interim stay granted earlier on 23.01.2026. The application placed on record specific Facebook posts authored by the petitioner (annexed as Annexures R/5 and R/6).
Upon perusal, the Bench observed that the posts contained:
- Scandalous references directed against both the Court and the counsel.
- Intemperate and contemptuous language undermining the dignity of judicial administration.
When questioned by the Bench, counsel for the petitioner stated that no instructions had been received on the matter.
Inordinate Delay in Responding to Contemptuous Conduct
The Court took serious note of the timeline and conduct of the petitioner:
- Notice Served in May 2026: A copy of the respondent’s application highlighting the contemptuous posts had been served on the petitioner's counsel on 04.05.2026, more than four and a half months prior to the hearing.
- Failure of Mediation: Although mediation was ongoing when the application was served, the mediation process had formally failed in July 2026.
- Absence of Rebuttal: Even calculating from the collapse of mediation, more than two and a half months had elapsed without any reply or counter-affidavit filed by the petitioner.
Directives of the Court
Expressing a tentative view that the petitioner's conduct warranted action under the law of contempt, the Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- Initiation of Suo Motu Contempt: A separate Suo Motu Contempt proceeding has been drawn up against the petitioner.
- Personal Appearance & Show Cause: The petitioner has been directed to remain personally present before the Supreme Court along with his written show-cause explanation on 23.11.2026.
- Listing at Top of the Board: The contempt petition, along with the complete records of the dismissed Special Leave Petition, is scheduled to be taken up at the top of the board.
- Potential Imposition of Costs: The Court explicitly recorded that on the next date of hearing, it will decide whether exemplary costs should be imposed on the petitioner for approaching the apex court with a frivolous petition.