Kerala HC rejects minister's apology; to pursue contempt case

Kochi, Apr 13 (UNI) The Kerala High Court today rejected the ''unconditional apology'' tendered by State Local Self-Government Minister Paloli Mohammed Kutty and posted the contempt of court case, instituted suo motu against him by the court, to May 30 for further proceeding.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice K S Radhakrishanan and Mr Justice M N Krishanan observed that Mr Mohammed Kutty's remarks against the judiciary during a speech at Kozhikode on January 30 were ''scurrilous'' and ''so grave as to have a tendency to disturb the judicial system.'' The court also said the contempt proceedings against two Malayalam newspapers 'Madhyamam' and 'Mangalam' will continue while those against 'Deepika' and 'Tejas' were dropped.

Mr Kutty had appeared in person before the court on February 26 and expressed ''sincere and deep regrets'' for the offending remarks and prayed that the contempt proceedings against him be dropped.

On April 2, the court held it was not enough for the minister to apologise to the court and suggested he could mitigate the damage done to the judicial system to some extent if an unconditional apology was tendered to the public in general, to regain the confidence the public have in the system.

On April 11, Mr Kutty's counsel informed the court the minister did not intend to make a general apology to the public for the remarks, following which the Bench posted the matter for today to give its decision on whether to accept his apology.

The bench had earlier observed ''we are prima facie of the view that the words spoken by the Minister are scurrilous abuse and so grave and have a tendency to shake the basic structure of the judicial system and (are) likely to undermine the deep-rooted faith and respect for our courts among the general public, thereby diminishing the confidence of the people in our judicial system.'' It had further observed Mr Kutty was not a layman but was holding the seat of a minister who has taken oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws and the words spoken by him would have great impact in the mind of the general public compared to that of a speech made by a bureaucrat or a former minister or a former judge.

UNI