SC summons Sanjay Raut, Nikhil Wagle in contempt case over posts on CJI

The Supreme Court summoned Sanjay Raut and Nikhil Wagle because the Supreme Court Bar Association filed a contempt petition over their social media remarks about Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The bench said the issue’s magnitude concerned the entire judiciary. It had earlier described the comments as “very unfortunate.”

The court directed Wagle to appear virtually at the next hearing on November 17. It ordered Raut to appear physically. Wagle had filed an affidavit offering an unconditional apology and said he removed his post after recognising his mistake. Raut was not represented in court, although lawyers said an advocate had entered appearance and filed an affidavit that was not before the bench.

The petition invokes Article 129, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the 1975 Supreme Court contempt rules. The court will hear the matter at 2 pm on November 17. Wagle’s physical presence could still be required later if the court considers it necessary.

The article does not reproduce the full posts, but it identifies the central allegations. It says Wagle used an expletive, while Raut insinuated that judges were coming under political influence. The Supreme Court Bar Association considered the remarks serious enough to seek contempt action against both respondents.

The posts came after CJI Surya Kant refused on October 11 to meet Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and Rajya Sabha Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge. The CJI cited separation of powers and said issues involving the Election Commission and Delhi protests were sub judice. The remarks followed that decision.

The Attorney General later said the tweets were prima facie scandalous and intended to lower the esteem of the Supreme Court, particularly the CJI. On October 16, the court called the comments “very unfortunate” and issued notice. Wagle later removed his post and offered an unconditional apology through an affidavit.

Two respondents are involved in the contempt proceedings: Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle. The case was brought by the Supreme Court Bar Association over their social media remarks about Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The bench said the issue affected the entire judiciary.

The court ordered Wagle to remain virtually present at the next hearing on November 17. It directed Raut to appear physically before the court. The hearing is scheduled for 2 pm. Earlier, both respondents had been exempted from personal presence when notice was issued on October 16.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Indira Jaising said she had advised Wagle not to appear because the earlier order exempted him. She offered to arrange his virtual or physical attendance. The court chose virtual attendance for now and said it could require him to appear physically if needed. Raut had no lawyer present in court that day.

Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines criminal contempt to include a publication that scandalises, tends to scandalise, lowers, or tends to lower the authority of any court. In simple terms, the provision addresses material seen as seriously attacking a court’s standing or public authority, rather than merely expressing disagreement.

The article gives the Attorney General’s assessment as an example. After reviewing the tweets by Nikhil Wagle and Sanjay Raut, he said they were prima facie scandalous and intended to lower the esteem of the Supreme Court, particularly the Chief Justice of India. The SCBA relied on this consent to file its petition.

The definition does not itself decide whether contempt occurred. The Supreme Court must consider the posts, the surrounding circumstances, Wagle’s apology, and the respondents’ explanations. The court has already issued notice and ordered the two respondents to attend the next hearing in different ways.

Article 129 of the Indian Constitution recognises the Supreme Court as a court of record and gives it the power to punish for contempt of itself. That constitutional authority is why the SCBA cited Article 129 while seeking action against Sanjay Raut and Nikhil Wagle. The petition also invoked statutory and procedural provisions.

The article says the SCBA relied on Article 129, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. The alleged conduct involved social media posts that the association said attacked the authority of the CJI and the Supreme Court.

Article 129 does not automatically establish guilt or determine the punishment in this case. The court first issued notice, considered the respondents’ positions, and ordered their attendance. Wagle has offered an unconditional apology, while Raut’s response was not before the bench in the form of the affidavit mentioned during the hearing.

The Attorney General’s consent was required because the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 require prior consent from the Attorney General or Solicitor General. This was a procedural condition for the SCBA’s proposed contempt petition, not a finding that either respondent had already committed contempt.

The SCBA approached Attorney General R. Venkataramani on October 14. The article says his consent was received, after which the association filed the petition. The case seeks action under Article 129, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Rule 3(c) of the 1975 Rules.

In granting consent, the Attorney General said the tweets by journalist Nikhil Wagle and MP Sanjay Raut were prima facie scandalous and intended to lower the esteem of the Supreme Court, particularly the CJI. The consent allowed the petition to proceed. The Supreme Court must still hear the respondents and decide the matter.

Separation of powers is the principle that different branches of government perform distinct functions and should respect one another’s institutional boundaries. Courts decide legal disputes, while political leaders perform political and legislative roles. The principle can limit informal discussions when they risk influencing, appearing to influence, or prejudging judicial matters.

The article says CJI Surya Kant refused on October 11 to meet Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge. He cited separation of powers and said issues involving the Election Commission and Delhi protests were sub judice, meaning they were under judicial consideration. The petition says the disputed posts followed that refusal.

This principle does not by itself resolve the contempt case. The court is examining whether the responses by Raut and Wagle unlawfully lowered its authority. It has described the matter as concerning the entire judiciary. The next hearing is set for November 17, with Wagle attending virtually and Raut physically.

Sanjay Raut and Nikhil Wagle face continued contempt proceedings under Article 129, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the Supreme Court’s 1975 Rules. The article does not state a specific punishment or final consequence. It says the court has issued notice, required attendance, and is considering allegations that their posts lowered the authority of the Supreme Court and CJI.

Wagle filed an affidavit offering an unconditional apology. His lawyer said he had respected the judiciary, regretted the post, and removed it soon after realising his mistake. The court nevertheless ordered him to appear virtually on November 17. Raut must appear physically, and his lawyer’s affidavit was not before the bench.

An apology can be considered by the court when assessing the response, but the article does not say how much weight it will receive. The court may ask Wagle to attend physically if required. The next hearing will show how the proceedings develop.