Supreme Court issues contempt notice to Sanjay Raut, journalist Wagle for posts against CJI

The Supreme Court began contempt proceedings against Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle. The bench said their social media posts were allegedly scandalous and derogatory toward Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The case matters because attacks that allegedly weaken public trust in the judiciary can raise criminal contempt concerns.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. The court referred to comments about judges, political links, dinners, and a photograph wrongly described as showing judges playing badminton in London. The court also noted that both respondents had previously sought remedies before it.

The matter will return after two weeks. Raut and Wagle do not currently have to attend personally. The notice is not a finding of guilt. They will have an opportunity to respond before the court decides whether their conduct amounts to contempt.

Contempt of court is a legal mechanism that protects the authority of courts and the administration of justice. The article states that criminal contempt includes any publication that scandalises, tends to scandalise, lowers, or tends to lower the authority of a court. It is concerned with the effect of public statements on confidence in judicial institutions.

Here, the Supreme Court Bar Association alleged that Raut and Wagle made false and scandalous comments about the Supreme Court and its judges. It said the statements were knowingly made to diminish the court’s authority. The petition particularly referred to claims about judges attending political programmes, accepting dinners, and playing badminton with political figures.

A contempt notice does not itself prove the offence. The court must consider the posts, their meaning, and whether they crossed the legal threshold. The respondents can answer the allegations. The court will then decide whether further proceedings or consequences are justified.

The Supreme Court Bar Association sought contempt proceedings after posts that it said attacked the Supreme Court and CJI Surya Kant. The posts followed the CJI’s refusal to meet Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge. The refusal cited separation of powers and sub judice issues involving the Election Commission and protests over alleged electoral-roll irregularities.

The petition referred to a video posted by Raut. It alleged that judges attended political programmes of the ruling party and accepted dinners hosted by chief ministers. It also mentioned photographs of judges playing badminton with political figures in London, along with allegations against the CJI and other judges.

The SCBA called the statements false and cited a June 19 Delhi High Court order. That order reportedly clarified that the badminton photograph came from an event at Thyagaraj Stadium the previous year, not London. The SCBA said the claims were intended to lower the Supreme Court’s esteem.

Criminal contempt of the Supreme Court is governed by constitutional and statutory rules. The article says the SCBA filed its petition under Article 129 of the Constitution, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. Article 129 and the legislation provide the legal framework for addressing contempt.

The procedure included a permission stage. The 1975 Rules require prior consent from the Attorney General or Solicitor General before such a petition is brought. The SCBA approached Attorney General R Venkataramani on Wednesday, and he granted consent on Thursday. He considered the posts prima facie scandalous.

The Supreme Court then issued notice to Raut and Wagle. The notice asks why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. The bench listed the matter after two weeks and declined to require personal attendance. The Solicitor General supported the SCBA’s request, while the court will determine the next legal steps.

The article explains the alleged contempt but does not state the statutory punishment. Under Section 12 of India’s Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, criminal contempt may be punished with simple imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to Rs 2,000, or both. This is established legal background beyond the supplied article.

The court would first have to find that the posts amounted to criminal contempt. A notice only asks Raut and Wagle to explain why proceedings should not continue. It does not establish liability, and the court has not yet decided whether the allegations meet the legal standard.

The law also allows a court to consider a genuine apology when deciding whether to discharge or remit punishment. The article does not say whether either respondent has offered one. The immediate reality is narrower: the matter is listed after two weeks, and both have been excused from personal appearance for now.

A finding of criminal contempt could expose Sanjay Raut and Nikhil Wagle to punishment under India’s Contempt of Courts Act. The article does not specify the penalty, but Section 12 permits simple imprisonment up to six months, a fine up to Rs 2,000, or both. This statutory detail comes from established legal background, not the supplied report.

Before any punishment, the court would need to examine their posts and responses. It would decide whether the statements were publications that scandalised or lowered the Supreme Court’s authority. The court could also consider whether any defence or apology affects the result. Issuing notice is only the beginning of that process.

For now, there is no conviction or sentence. The bench has listed the case after two weeks and exempted both respondents from personal presence. The next stage is therefore their opportunity to respond and the court’s assessment of whether further contempt proceedings are warranted.

Separation of powers means government branches should perform their own roles without improperly pressuring one another. Courts must decide legal disputes independently, while political leaders pursue political responsibilities. Public meetings about active disputes can create concerns about influence, especially when judicial decisions or pending proceedings are involved.

The article says CJI Surya Kant refused to meet Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge. He cited separation of powers and sub judice matters connected with the Election Commission of India and protests over alleged irregularities in the Special Investigation Review of electoral rolls. “Sub judice” means an issue is under judicial consideration.

These limits do not prevent all public discussion. They support careful boundaries around private meetings and public pressure while cases are active. In this dispute, the SCBA said later comments about judges and the CJI went beyond criticism and threatened the court’s authority. The Supreme Court will assess that claim through contempt proceedings.