On Tuesday, 27th October, the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) apologised to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice Surya Kant, over a controversial post published on the official X account of the Congress Kerala unit. The party has said that the post was unauthorised and did not reflect the views or position of its leadership.
In its reply to a legal notice received on 21st October, KPCC president Sunny Joseph said the post was published by Vijay Thottathil without the knowledge or approval of the party leadership. Thottathil has since been removed from his position and directed to issue a public apology.
The Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) has tendered an unconditional apology to Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant over a controversial post published on the official X account of the Congress Kerala unit. In its reply to a legal notice, KPCC president Sunny Joseph said the post was published by Vijay Thottathil without the knowledge or approval of the party leadership. Vijay Thottathil has been removed from his position and asked to issue a public apology, the reply stated
— ANI (@ANI) October 27, 2026
The KPCC has also withdrawn the remarks made in the post and expressed regret over the language used against the CJI. It said the party respects the Constitution, judicial independence and the constitutional office of the Chief Justice of India.
“The demand for resignation and the suggestion of finding a replacement for the Chief Justice were inappropriate and should not have appeared on an official party platform,” the reply stated.
What did the controversial post say?
The controversial post was published on 12th October on the official X account of the Congress Kerala unit. It targeted CJI Surya Kant and called for his resignation. “Dear Surya Kant, if law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it,” the post read.
The controversy had erupted when the Kerala Congress unit’s official X account carried remarks targeting the Chief Justice during a protest by the INDIA bloc.
The march to the Supreme Court was organised as part of the opposition alliance’s demand for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The post expressed anger over the Chief Justice’s decision that he could not meet INDIA bloc leaders because of legal issues.
The remarks triggered controversy, following which the party distanced itself from the post. In its reply to the legal notice, the KPCC clarified that the statements did not represent the official position, policy or considered opinion of either the Kerala Congress unit or the Indian National Congress.
The party also stressed that the absence of prior approval was mentioned only to explain how the post was published, not to justify its language. “The absence of prior authorisation is offered as a factual explanation, not as a justification for the expressions used,” the reply stated.
KPCC reviews social media controls
Apart from apologising to the CJI, the KPCC has acknowledged the need to review its social media management and approval procedures. The party said that involving an outside professional agency to handle its digital communications did not remove its responsibility to ensure proper oversight.
The committee said it would examine how the post was drafted, reviewed, and published, along with who was involved at each stage. It would also look into account access permissions, devices used and relevant internal communications.
The party also cautioned against accusing individuals or political leaders of authorising or supporting the post without supporting evidence.
In its reply, the KPCC said that the apology to the CJI was being issued separately from the public apology sought from Thottathil, whom it identified as the person responsible for publishing the post.
“The KPCC expressly had repudiated and withdrawn the statements reproduced in your notice. On its behalf, I tender an unconditional apology to the Chief Justice of India for the publication and the disrespect conveyed by its language,” the letter stated.
Joseph also denied personally directing, approving or endorsing the post. However, he acknowledged that the incident pointed to failures in the party’s communication controls that needed to be examined.
