SC asks Sanjay Raut to explain remarks about CJI

The Supreme Court sought an explanation from Sanjay Raut over remarks about the judiciary and Chief Justice Surya Kant. The court’s order said his petition was being provisionally entertained, subject to him explaining his conduct. This matters because statements by a litigant about the judges hearing related proceedings can raise concerns about the court’s authority and fairness.

Raut had criticised Kant after the chief justice declined a meeting with Rahul Gandhi. Gandhi wanted to submit a memorandum about alleged electoral irregularities, the Election Commission, and voter-roll deletions. Raut then claimed that Kant and other judges had played badminton in London with BJP leaders and attended dinners with ministers, but could not meet the Opposition leader.

The bench was hearing Opposition petitions about the special intensive revision of electoral rolls. Kant said judges knew about statements made outside court and did not live in “ivory towers”. The court issued notice to the Election Commission and Kumar, while Raut must explain his conduct.

Raut criticised Chief Justice Surya Kant after Kant declined a meeting with Rahul Gandhi. Gandhi had sought to submit a memorandum about alleged electoral irregularities, the Election Commission’s functioning, and large-scale deletions during voter-roll revision. Raut questioned why Kant could not meet the Leader of the Opposition.

Raut also claimed that Kant and several judges had played badminton in London with Bharatiya Janata Party leaders and attended dinners with ministers. The attorney general later said the badminton claim was false and cited a Delhi High Court order. He said Raut’s remarks undermined the judiciary’s dignity and were scandalous.

Separately, journalist Nikhil Wagle used an abusive phrase for the chief justice in a social media post. Wagle deleted it and later apologised to Kant and the Supreme Court. He described the post as an emotional outburst caused by sudden anguish and frustration with the system.

Criminal contempt of court is a legal process for conduct that seriously interferes with justice or undermines a court’s authority. It can include publications or public statements that scandalise the court, obstruct proceedings, or diminish confidence in judges. The central concern is protecting the administration of justice, not shielding judges from every criticism.

In this matter, the attorney general said Raut’s claim about judges playing badminton with ministers was false and had undermined the judiciary’s dignity. The bar association alleged that Wagle’s abusive social media remark was deliberately made to scandalise and diminish the Supreme Court’s authority. Those allegations illustrate how public speech can become contemptuous.

A court would still need to examine the conduct and apply the law before imposing punishment. Strong disagreement, reporting, and fair criticism do not automatically amount to contempt. The article reports consent for proceedings, not a final finding that either person committed contempt.

The matter involves two people: Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) MP Sanjay Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle. The attorney general granted the Supreme Court Bar Association consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against both. Consent allows the proposed cases to move forward, but it does not establish guilt.

Raut is accused of making remarks about the judiciary and Chief Justice Surya Kant. He claimed that Kant and other judges had played badminton in London with BJP leaders and attended dinners with ministers. The attorney general said the badminton claim was false and that Raut’s comments undermined the judiciary’s dignity.

Wagle is accused of using an abusive phrase for the chief justice in a social media post. He deleted the post and later apologised, calling it an emotional outburst. The bar association said the remark was deliberately and knowingly made to scandalise and diminish the Supreme Court’s authority.

If criminal contempt proceedings are initiated and a court finds the conduct contemptuous, the court can impose a legal penalty. Under Indian contempt law, that may include imprisonment, a fine, or both, subject to the court’s findings and the applicable law. A consent to begin proceedings is therefore not the same as punishment.

Raut could have to defend claims that his statements about judges playing badminton with BJP leaders were false and scandalous. Wagle could have to answer for the abusive phrase he posted about Chief Justice Surya Kant. Wagle deleted the post and apologised, but the bar association still sought action.

The article does not report that either person has been found guilty. It says the attorney general granted consent, the Supreme Court sought Raut’s explanation, and Wagle asked the attorney general to consider the circumstances and not proceed with sanction. The next outcome depends on later legal steps.

The attorney general’s consent acts as a legal screening requirement before certain criminal contempt proceedings are initiated by someone other than the court itself. It helps ensure that allegations serious enough to invoke contempt jurisdiction have a proper basis. This is especially important because contempt proceedings can affect speech and carry penalties.

Here, the Supreme Court Bar Association requested permission to proceed against Raut and Wagle. Attorney General R Venkataramani granted consent in both matters. He said Raut’s statements about judges playing badminton with ministers were false and scandalous. In Wagle’s case, the bar association relied on an abusive social media remark about the chief justice.

Consent does not decide the cases. It only permits the proposed criminal contempt process to move ahead. The court must still consider the allegations, the evidence, any explanations or apologies, and whether the legal test for contempt has been met. The article reports no final ruling against either person.

Courts have power to punish serious attacks because justice depends on proceedings being respected and allowed to function. Deliberately false or abusive statements can damage public confidence, intimidate participants, or undermine a court’s authority. Contempt law addresses that institutional harm rather than giving judges unlimited protection from criticism.

The distinction appears in this matter. The attorney general said Raut’s claim about judges playing badminton with ministers was false and scandalous. The bar association said Wagle knowingly used an abusive phrase to diminish the Supreme Court’s authority. These allegations concern statements about the chief justice and judges, not merely disagreement with a judgment.

The balance requires a court to examine context, truth, intent, and actual effect before finding contempt. Wagle said his post was an emotional outburst, deleted it, and apologised. The article records consent and a request for explanations, but no final contempt finding. That leaves the court to determine whether the statements crossed the legal line.