Supreme Court summons Sanjay Raut in person over judiciary remarks

The Supreme Court has directed Sanjay Raut to appear personally on November 17, while Nikhil Wagle may join virtually. The contempt case tests the boundary between fair criticism and remarks that may undermine judicial authority.Stock photo used for illustrationNewdelhi,Oct 28, 2026 17:06 ISTThe Supreme Court has directed Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut to appear before it in person on November 17 in contempt proceedings over his remarks concerning Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and the judiciary, news agency Press Trust of India reported.A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi said the matter concerned the "entire institution of judiciary". It also directed journalist Nikhil Wagle to appear virtually at the next hearing.The court had issued show-cause notices to Raut and Wagle on October 16 on a contempt petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association. It had exempted them from appearing in person on October 28, saying it would first consider their explanations.After Wednesday's hearing, Raut told PTI that he would appear before the Supreme Court as directed. He said he was not fully aware of what had happened during the hearing as his lawyers were not present. "I will remain present in the court," he said. During the hearing, senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing Wagle, said the journalist had tendered an unconditional apology for his social media posts, which were later deleted."Now that he has deleted and expressed remorse and tendered unconditional apology, let him appear," the bench said, adding that Wagle could join the proceedings virtually. It said, "This is an issue which pertains to the entire institution of judiciary." Senior advocate Pradeep Rai and other lawyers appearing for the bar association referred to posts by Raut and Wagle on X and said they showed a lack of respect for the country's highest court.The bench noted that the bar association's lawyers had said Raut had filed a reply affidavit. "They have also drawn the attention of the court to various posts of respondent number two (Raut) which has been posted on social media. However, copy of the said affidavit is not on record," it said."Be that as it may, we direct respondent number two (Raut) to be present physically before this court on the next date of hearing," the bench said, posting the matter for November 17.The court also noted Jaising's submission that Wagle had filed a reply affidavit and sought the withdrawal of the show-cause notice against him. "Having regard to the magnitude of the issues involved in the instant case, we are of the considered view that the first respondent (Wagle) shall appear virtually on the next date of hearing," the bench said.When Jaising again asked the court to withdraw the notice against Wagle, the bench sought her assistance in the matter. "We request you to assist us. You will never say no, we know that," it told her.Jaising replied, "Because we love this institution. But the institution must also love us. It has to be a mutual love. It can't be a one-way love." The bench responded that it was never one-way traffic.At the October 16 hearing, Rai, who is also the SCBA president, alleged that the remarks by Raut and Wagle went beyond fair criticism and could undermine public confidence in the Supreme Court.Attorney General R Venkataramani had earlier given consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The SCBA filed its petition on October 15, and Venkataramani granted consent on the same day.The controversy followed the CJI's decision to decline a request for a personal meeting with a delegation of opposition parties. He indicated that the matter could instead be brought before the court through a petition.According to the SCBA's petition, Wagle later posted an allegedly abusive remark against the CJI on X. He subsequently shared a letter addressed to the attorney general in which he tendered an unconditional apology to the CJI and the Supreme Court. Wagle said he had deleted the earlier post and requested that the contempt matter not be pursued.Raut also allegedly made objectionable remarks. The SCBA challenged his statements, saying the allegations against the judiciary were contrary to the available record.The petition cited a June 19 order of the Delhi High Court, which found that photographs circulated as showing a badminton event in London were actually from an event held at Delhi's Thyagaraj Stadium in November 2025. The high court had ordered the removal of the content.In his consent letter, the attorney general said the remarks attributed to Wagle were abusive and inappropriate for public consumption. On Raut's allegations, he said claims that judges had attended BJP programmes and that chief ministers had hosted dinners were not supported by facts.Venkataramani also noted that the Delhi High Court's order concerning the photographs came before Raut's statement. He said an MP should have verified the facts before making such allegations.The SCBA said it did not seek to restrict fair criticism of the judiciary. However, it said the statements in question had crossed that line and could scandalise the court and diminish its authority. The Supreme Court will take up the matter again on November 17, when Raut must appear in person and Wagle virtually.- Ends