Kerala HC: Advocate Mini Seeks Contempt Against Actress Assault Judge

• Advocate TB Mini has filed a petition with the Kerala High Court seeking contempt of court action against trial judge Honey M Varghese.
• The action stems from alleged defamatory statements made by Judge Varghese against Mini in open court on January 12, 2026.
• Mini's petition specifically challenges the Advocate General's prior refusal to grant consent for these contempt proceedings.
• Judge Varghese, who delivered the verdict in the 2017 actress assault case, was routinely transferred from Ernakulam to Alappuzha District Court.
• Justice PV Kunhikrishnan is currently handling the plea, with the next hearing scheduled for November 4.

Her present petition directly contests this refusal, aiming to overcome this significant procedural hurdle and allow the contempt allegations to be formally heard.

Advocate TB Mini, who served as legal counsel for the survivor in the high-profile 2017 actress assault case, has formally petitioned the Kerala High Court. Her petition seeks the initiation of contempt of court proceedings against Judge Honey M Varghese, the trial judge who presided over the aforementioned case. This legal action, identified as TB Mini v The Hon'ble Registrar General & ors, stems from serious allegations of defamatory statements purportedly made by Judge Varghese during open court proceedings. The move by Advocate Mini underscores the gravity with which perceived judicial misconduct is being addressed within the legal framework.

The specific remarks at the heart of the complaint were allegedly uttered on January 12, 2026, while the court was actively considering a petition submitted on behalf of the survivor actress. Advocate Mini contends that Judge Varghese asserted that Mini had attended the trial for fewer than ten days, remained in court for only a mere half-hour, and had even slept during the proceedings. These pointed statements, if proven, could constitute a significant breach of judicial decorum and form the basis of the contempt action sought by the survivor's lawyer, raising questions about the impartiality and respect accorded to legal practitioners in court.

A pivotal aspect of Advocate Mini's current plea before the High Court is her direct challenge to a prior decision by the Advocate General. She had initially sought the Advocate General's consent to initiate contempt proceedings against Judge Varghese, a necessary procedural step for such actions against a sitting judge in India. However, this crucial request was denied, prompting Mini to escalate the matter to the High Court. Her present petition directly contests this refusal, aiming to overcome this significant procedural hurdle and allow the contempt allegations to be formally heard.

The legal challenge has been brought before Justice PV Kunhikrishnan, who is now tasked with reviewing the merits of Mini's petition and the Advocate General's decision. Justice Kunhikrishnan has scheduled the case for further consideration on November 4, a Wednesday, indicating that the court will delve deeper into the legal arguments surrounding the necessity of consent for contempt proceedings. This development highlights the intricate legal framework governing accountability for judicial officers and the specific approvals required before such serious charges can advance.

Judge Honey M Varghese played a central role in the highly publicized 2017 actress assault case, ultimately delivering the final verdict. Following her tenure at the Ernakulam District Court, Judge Varghese was subsequently transferred to the Alappuzha District Court. This relocation was officially characterized as a routine judicial transfer, a standard administrative practice within the Indian judiciary that often occurs periodically for judges.

Advocate Mini's involvement in the actress assault case was extensive, as she provided crucial assistance to the public prosecutor not only at the trial court level but also in related matters before the High Court. The current proceedings, therefore, not only address specific allegations of judicial misconduct and defamatory remarks made in open court but also underscore the broader implications of judicial conduct. The case brings into focus the mechanisms available for legal practitioners to seek redress when they perceive judicial comments as inappropriate or undermining, thereby contributing to the ongoing discourse on judicial accountability and the integrity of court proceedings.

This case highlights the procedural hurdles and specific requirements for initiating contempt of court proceedings against a sitting judge in India, particularly when the Advocate General's consent is denied. Lawyers should observe the High Court's interpretation of judicial remarks in open court and the grounds for establishing contempt, which could influence future strategies for addressing perceived judicial misconduct or bias.

Source: Original reporting via the provided source material.