The Supreme Court on Friday issued show-cause notices to Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle in a criminal contempt case arising from their remarks targeting Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and the judiciary. The Bench sought their responses on why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.
A Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order on a petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). The Court, however, exempted the two respondents from personal appearance at this stage.
The contempt proceedings stem from statements made by Raut and Wagle following the CJI’s decision not to meet a delegation of Opposition leaders led by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The delegation had sought an appointment to raise concerns relating to the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant expressed concern over the nature of the criticism directed at the judiciary, observing that courts had consistently intervened to protect personal liberty and fundamental rights. He remarked that people routinely approached the courts when their rights were threatened and that the judiciary had not hesitated to discharge its constitutional responsibilities. The Chief Justice expressed disappointment over attacks on the institution and hoped that better sense would prevail.
The SCBA approached the Court after obtaining the requisite consent from Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The association alleged that the statements crossed the boundaries of fair criticism and were capable of undermining public confidence in the Supreme Court and its leadership.
SCBA President and Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai played a key role in pursuing the association’s stand that criticism of the judiciary must remain within the bounds of responsible public discourse. The association’s petition contended that remarks targeting the CJI and judges could not be viewed merely as political commentary if they had the potential to scandalise the institution or diminish its authority.
Rai has maintained that the independence and dignity of the judiciary are essential to the constitutional framework and that the Bar has a responsibility to defend the institution against statements that may erode public confidence in it. The contempt proceedings reflect the SCBA’s decision to seek judicial scrutiny of the remarks through the legal process rather than leave the controversy to public exchanges.
Wagle had posted an abusive remark directed at the CJI on his X account after reports emerged that the Chief Justice had declined to meet the Opposition delegation. He later deleted the post and tendered an unconditional apology to the CJI and the Supreme Court. In his communication to the Attorney General, Wagle reportedly described the remark as an emotional outburst and requested that the matter not be pursued further.
The SCBA nevertheless sought contempt action, arguing that the nature and reach of the remark warranted examination under the law. The issuance of a show-cause notice gives Wagle an opportunity to explain his conduct before the Court decides whether further proceedings are justified.
Raut, meanwhile, criticised the CJI’s refusal to meet the Opposition leaders and alleged that judges interacted with political figures and attended political events while declining to meet representatives seeking to discuss concerns about democracy. He also made claims concerning judges playing badminton with political figures in London.
The SCBA disputed the factual basis of those claims. In granting consent for contempt proceedings, the Attorney General referred to material indicating that photographs circulated as showing a badminton gathering in London were actually from an event held at Thyagaraj Stadium in New Delhi in November 2025. He observed that allegations concerning judges should have been verified before being made publicly.
The Supreme Court will consider the explanations submitted by Raut and Wagle before deciding the next course of action. The issuance of show-cause notices does not amount to a final determination that either respondent has committed criminal contempt of court.
The post Supreme Court issues contempt notices to Sanjay Raut, Nikhil Wagle over remarks against CJI Surya Kant appeared first on India Legal.