The Supreme Court has directed Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut to appear physically before it on November 17, 2026, while permitting journalist Nikhil Wagle to participate through video conferencing in the criminal contempt proceedings arising from their remarks concerning Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and the judiciary.
A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi passed the directions on October 28 while hearing Supreme Court Bar Association v. Nikhil Wagle and Another. The matter has been listed for further hearing at 2:00 PM on November 17.
The proceedings arise from a petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) after obtaining written consent from Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Attorney General had considered the respondents’ remarks prima facie scandalous and capable of diminishing the standing of the Supreme Court and its Chief Justice.
The controversy began after CJI Surya Kant declined a request for an in-person meeting from a delegation of Opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, concerning issues relating to the Election Commission of India and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. Following the refusal, Wagle published an objectionable message on X directed at the Chief Justice. The SCBA subsequently alleged that the post, circulated through a public social media account, was capable of undermining the authority of the country’s highest court.
During the October 28 hearing, Senior Advocates Pradeep Rai and Rahul Kaushik, along with Advocates Pragya Baghal and Meenesh Dubey, appeared for the SCBA. They referred to the respondents’ social media posts and argued that the statements reflected a disregard for the Supreme Court and its institutional standing. The association also contended that Wagle had removed his post only five days after its publication, disputing the suggestion that he had acted promptly to address the controversy.
Rai argued that Wagle should be required to appear in person since the posts were not deleted until the contempt notices were issued. He further noted that Raut had even posted a subsequent tweet.
Appearing for Wagle, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising informed the Bench that her client had filed an affidavit expressing unconditional and sincere remorse. She submitted that Wagle had removed the disputed content and did not intend to defend or justify his actions. Jaising also drew attention to his career spanning more than five decades in journalism and requested the Court to consider his apology while dealing with the show-cause notice.
The Bench took note of the apology and the removal of the post. Justice Aravind Kumar observed that, given the expression of remorse, Wagle should participate in the next hearing. Jaising explained that his earlier absence had been based on legal advice and requested permission for virtual participation because he resides in Mumbai. The Court accepted the request for the present stage of the proceedings, while leaving open the possibility of requiring his physical attendance later.
The position was different in Raut’s case. Although Advocate-on-Record Vishnu Sharma had reportedly filed a vakalatnama on his behalf, no lawyer entered an appearance for him during the hearing. The Bench was also informed that Raut had submitted a reply affidavit referring to his social media posts, but a copy had not been placed on the judicial record. The Court directed the Registry to ensure that the affidavit was brought on record and ordered Raut to attend the next hearing physically.
The SCBA also raised concerns over other statements attributed to Raut. According to the association, he had alleged that judges attended political programmes organised by the ruling party and accepted invitations to dinners hosted by Chief Ministers. The petition further referred to claims about judges playing badminton with political figures in London. The Attorney General, while granting consent for the contempt proceedings, reportedly noted that allegations concerning judges playing badminton in London had been found false by the Delhi High Court.
The association additionally brought another social media post attributed to Raut to the Bench’s attention. It alleged that the post referred to the burning of Albania’s Supreme Court by protesters and suggested that a comparable situation could arise in India. These assertions form part of the allegations raised by the petitioner and have not been finally adjudicated in the present contempt proceedings.
The Bench also considered the wider institutional questions arising from the dispute. During the exchange, Jaising submitted that the legal profession remained committed to the judiciary but that the relationship between the institution and lawyers also required mutual understanding. She argued that members of the Bar should have space to express frustration while continuing to work towards institutional improvement.
Responding to these submissions, Justice Kumar observed that the issue concerned the judiciary as a whole. The discussion also highlighted the role played by courts in protecting individual rights and providing relief to those who approach them when their liberty or other legal interests are threatened. The exchange brought into focus the distinction between criticism of judicial decisions and statements alleged to undermine the authority of the institution.
The contempt petition had earlier come before the Supreme Court on October 16, 2026, when a Bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued show-cause notices to both respondents. At that stage, their personal appearances were exempted. The matter was subsequently listed before the Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi for further consideration.
The Supreme Court has now directed Wagle to appear virtually and Raut to attend physically on November 17 at 2:00 PM. The Court has not yet delivered a final ruling on the contempt allegations or on Wagle’s request for discharge of the show-cause notice.
The post Supreme Court directs Sanjay Raut to appear physically, allows Nikhil Wagle to join virtually in contempt case over remarks against CJI appeared first on India Legal.