Michael Sukkar and Alan Tudge withdrew the comments after being called on to explain why they should not be charged with contempt

Two of the Turnbull government ministers who could face contempt of court proceedings have deleted tweets containing criticisms of the Victorian judiciary.

The human services minister, Alan Tudge, the health minister, Greg Hunt, and the assistant treasurer, Michael Sukkar, were ordered to appear before the Victorian court of appeal on Friday to explain comments they made to the Australian, describing the appeal bench as “hard-left activist judges” who were “divorced from reality” and conducting an “ideological experiment”.

The comments concerned an appeal being heard by the chief justice, Marilyn Warren, and judges Mark Weinberg and Stephen Kaye over the sentencing of two Melbourne teenagers – Sevdet Besim and a teen known only as MHK – which the commonwealth director of public prosecutions argued had been too lenient.

Federal ministers fail to apologise for attack on 'hard-left' judges Read more

The three ministers, who did not appear in court in person at the extraordinary hearing, withdrew their comments through the solicitor general, Stephen Donoghue QC, but did not apologise.

If they were to be prosecuted and convicted, they could be ineligible for parliament under section 44 of the Australian constitution, which applies to anyone convicted of an offence that carries a possible penalty of a year or more in jail. A person does not actually have to be sentenced to jail to be ruled ineligible to hold a seat in parliament.

Nationwide News, publisher of the Australian, was also asked to explain itself to the court. It offered an unreserved apology but urged judges not to shoot the messenger.

On Saturday Sukkar and Tudge deleted tweets linking to the Australian article.

“Some Victorian judges have unbelievably said we should have softer penalties for terrorists,” Sukkar posted, in a tweet that was shared by the Tasmanian senator Eric Abetz before it was deleted.

Tudge’s deleted tweet read: “Some Vic judges have criticised NSW for being tough on terror – I think most Aussies would say we can’t be tough enough.”

The potential contempt charges sparked a broader concern about the separation of powers in the federal government, with the Liberal MP Sarah Henderson – who had retweeted Tudge’s deleted tweet criticising the judiciary – cancelling the scheduled appearances of two chief justices before a parliamentary committee hearing on family violence out of concern it may not be “appropriate”.

Henderson told other committee members the evidence of the family court chief justice, Diana Bryant, and the federal circuit court chief justice, John Pascoe, would be postponed while she consulted the attorney general, George Brandis, on “the appropriateness of senior members of the judiciary appearing for questioning by MPs before a parliamentary inquiry,” the ABC reported.

Samantha Maiden (@samanthamaiden) Contempt hearing video: Do yourself a favour and take time to listen to this over weekend it really is something https://t.co/ilAQqrkIyR

The court of appeal on Friday heard the ministers made the comments to the Australian in the form of three separate, unsolicited statements on 12 June, in response to a story published by the ABC on the Besim and MHK appeal on 9 June which quoted Warren and others as commenting on the difference in sentencing terrorism offences between New South Wales and Victoria. Neither the ministers nor the journalist who wrote the article had read the transcript of appeal proceedings.

Our politicians show an alarming ignorance of the separation of powers | Josh Bornstein Read more

Warren said the comments by the ministers “failed to respect the doctrine of separation of powers, breach the principle of sub judice and reflect a lack of proper understanding of the importance to our democracy of the independence of the judiciary from the political arms of Government”.

Kaye added: “ It is a matter of very deep concern that three ministers of the Crown are clearly so ignorant of the separation of powers and sub judice concept. That disturbs me greatly, not only as a judge of this Court, but as a member of our nation.”

Donoghue said the ministers had not intended to influence or scandalise the court, and argued that the minister’s comments were “poorly worded” but part of a legitimate public debate about how to respond to terrorism offences.

The judges withheld their decision over whether to refer the matter to another court for prosecution but said they would endeavour “to be as expeditious as we can”.