Published Nov 03, 2026 | 4:18 PM ⚊ Updated Nov 03, 2026 | 4:18 PM
Judge Honey M Varghese
Synopsis: Advocate TB Mini, who represented the survivor in the 2017 actor assault case, has approached the Kerala High Court seeking contempt proceedings against Judge Honey M Varghese over alleged derogatory remarks made about her during the trial. Mini said the remarks had damaged her professional reputation, caused her mental distress and triggered cyberbullying.
Advocate TB Mini, who represented the survivor in the 2017 actor assault case, has approached the Kerala High Court seeking suo motu contempt of court proceedings against trial judge Honey M Varghese over remarks she allegedly made against the lawyer during the trial in January 2026.
Mini has alleged that the remarks, which were outside the scope of judicial proceedings, amounted to professional defamation and triggered cyberbullying against her. She said the remarks had caused her difficulties both professionally and personally.
Speaking to South First, Mini said advocates, as officers of the court, must be protected from personal attacks by judges. Derogatory remarks made by a judge against an advocate outside judicial proceedings could amount to contempt of court, she maintained.
Advocate TB Mini
Mini said the controversy had caused her severe mental distress and damaged her professional reputation. It had also affected the trust her clients placed in her, she said.
Also Read: Exclusive: Tip of the iceberg? How BLM and R Premkumar spun their alleged grand web of deception
In April 2026, the survivor approached the President of India and the Chief Justice of India, urging them to stop the proposed elevation of Judge Varghese to the High Court.
She also submitted a memorandum to the Union Home Minister, the Union Law Minister and the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court.
Varghese, who is currently the Principal District and Sessions Judge in Alappuzha, had presided over the trial in Ernakulam since 2019. The survivor had specifically requested a woman judge to hear the case.
Although judicial postings generally rotate every three years, Varghese continued to handle the trial beyond the usual tenure to ensure continuity in the prolonged proceedings.
Her name was among those of five judicial officers recommended for elevation by the Kerala High Court Collegium. Seniority among district judges was cited as a key criterion for the recommendations.
In her petition, the survivor raised concerns about the conduct of the trial and opposed Varghese’s elevation while matters arising from the case remained under consideration.
Subsequently, High Court lawyer and public activist Kulathur Jaisingh filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) of the state Home Department, seeking an inquiry into whether the survivor’s objection to Judge Varghese’s elevation was part of a larger criminal conspiracy.
In the complaint, Jaisingh alleged that attempts were being made to undermine the judiciary by raising “legally unfounded allegations” against the judge following the verdict.
(Edited by Dese Gowda with inputs from Sreelakshmi Soman)
