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

The Supreme Court on Wednesday summoned Shiv Sena (UBT) member of Parliament Sanjay Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle in a contempt case filed over their objectionable social media posts against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant.Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut (ANI)Hearing a contempt petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) against Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle for their remarks against CJI, a bench of justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi said that the magnitude of the issue involved concerns the entire judiciary. It further directed Wagle to remain virtually present on November 17, the next date of hearing.A bench headed by CJI Kant on October 16 issued notice on the SCBA plea seeking the responses from Raut and Wagle, exempting them from personal presence at the time.On Wednesday, the court was informed that Wagle had since filed an affidavit offering an unconditional apology. He was represented by senior advocate Indira Jaising who stated that Wagle has always maintained a track record of showing respect to the judiciary and that he was remorseful about his post, which he removed soon after realising his mistake.Raut was not represented by any lawyer in court. SCBA, represented by its President and senior advocate Pradeep Kumar Rai, along with senior advocate Rahul Kaushik, said that advocate Vishnu Sharma had entered appearance for Raut and had even filed an affidavit. However, the same was not there before the court.The court said, “Having regard to the magnitude of the issue involved, we are of the considered view that respondent 1 (Wagle) shall appear virtually on the next date. We direct the respondent 2 (Raut) to be present physically before this court on the next date of hearing.” The court posted the matter for hearing at 2 pm on November 17.During the hearing, the court enquired if the two respondents were present. Jaising informed the court that she had advised Wagle not to appear as the order specifically exempted his presence. She offered to instruct her client to appear virtually or physically as the court may direct.The court said, “This is an issue that pertains to the entire judiciary. Each of us (bar and bench) have stood together for each other.” The court told Jaising, “Let him come virtually for the time being. If required, we will ask him to be here physically.”On October 16, while issuing notice, the court termed the comments made by Raut and Wagle as “very unfortunate” .SCBA president Rai urged the court to seek their personal presence. The petition was filed by SCBA seeking action against the duo under Article 129 of the Constitution of India and the relevant provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.Since the 1975 Rules require prior consent of the Attorney General or solicitor general, SCBA had on October 14 approached AG R Venkataramani for his consent. The same was received pursuant to which the petition was filed.The petition said that the remarks, an expletive from Wagle, and an insinuation by Raut of judges coming under political influence , came after CJI Kant on October 11 refused to meet Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and Rajya Sabha Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge citing “separation of powers” and the issues regarding Election Commission and Delhi protests which are both “sub-judice” .Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act defines criminal contempt to mean any publication that scandalises, tends to scandalise, lower or tends to lower the authority of any court. Even the Attorney General while granting consent said, “In my considered view the tweets made by Nikhil Wagle, journalist and Sanjay Raut, Member of Parliament are prima facie scandalous, intended to lower the esteem of the Supreme Court of India and particularly the CJI.”