The Supreme Court of India has directed journalist Nikhil Wagle to appear virtually, and Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut to appear in person, at the next hearing of a criminal contempt petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) over remarks made against Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and the judiciary. The hearing is scheduled for 2 PM on November 17, 2026.
—
## What Led to the Case
The SCBA lodged the contempt petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act after receiving Attorney General R. Venkataramani’s written consent. The AG stated that the statements by Wagle and Raut were “prima facie scandalous and intended to lower the esteem of the Supreme Court, particularly the Chief Justice of India.”
– Wagle’s controversial post came after CJI Surya Kant declined to meet a delegation from Opposition parties amid ongoing protests in Delhi. He wrote from his social media account, “**** you CJI”.
– Sanjay Raut allegedly spread false claims: he accused judges of attending political events for the ruling party and accepting dinners hosted by Chief Ministers. He cited supposed photos of judges playing badminton with politicians in London, criticizing the CJI’s refusal to meet Opposition leaders.
– The Delhi High Court has already declared the claims about judges playing badminton in London to be false.
—
## Arguments from Both Sides
### Defense for Nikhil Wagle
Wagle, represented by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, responded with an unconditional apology for his tweet. She emphasized his unblemished journalism career spanning over fifty years and noted that he deleted the post after receiving the contempt notice. Jaising also clarified that Wagle had initially followed legal advice when he did not appear in court earlier, though he was willing to attend virtually given his residence in Mumbai.
### Counterpoints from SCBA
The SCBA argued, however, that Wagle’s apology and post deletion came only after a five-day delay following receipt of the contempt notice. They maintain that such conduct does not absolve the alleged scandalizing effect of the original statements.
In Raut’s case, no counsel appeared during the hearing. Advocate-on-Record Vishnu Sharma filed a vakalatnama, but the registry reported that no appearance was recorded for Raut. SCBA also drew attention to his social media posts, which they say further disparage the judiciary.
—
## Court’s Directive and Rationale
A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi heard the matter. At the hearing:
– The court acknowledged Wagle’s apology and deletion of the post. Justice Kumar noted that since Wagle expressed remorse, it was necessary for him to be present. Given his Mumbai residence, virtual participation was permitted for now, with the possibility of mandatory in-person appearance depending on further proceedings.
– For Raut, the court clearly ordered physical appearance on the next hearing date, citing non-appearance at the current hearing despite legal filings.
The court emphasized the gravity of the issue, stating that it concerns the entire institution of the judiciary, not just individuals. Justice Kumar responded to defense arguments about frustration within the legal community by observing that the judiciary has endured and stood up for others, highlighting that criticism of judicial integrity must be handled carefully and responsibly.
—
## Importance of Consent by the Attorney General
AG R. Venkataramani’s written opinion was central to the court’s decision to proceed. He characterized the statements by Wagle and Raut as “scandalous” and said they appeared aimed at lowering the respect for the Supreme Court. The AG also flagged that several allegations made by Raut—including about judges playing badminton in London—were already found to be false.
—
## Next Steps
– Both respondents must appear at the Supreme Court on **November 17, 2026**, with Wagle participating virtually and Raut in person.
– The Court’s registry will ensure a copy of Raut’s reply affidavit is placed on record.
– The matter remains under scrutiny for possible consequences, given the seriousness of contempt issues against the judiciary.
—
This article is AI-generated content. Please verify the information independently before taking any action based on this article.
