Supreme Court Directs Sanjay Raut and Nikhil Wagle to Appear in Contempt Proceedings Over Judiciary Remarks

The Supreme Court has directed Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut to appear before it in person on November 17 in ongoing contempt proceedings. A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi also ordered journalist Nikhil Wagle to appear virtually for the next hearing.

The proceedings stem from a contempt petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). On October 16, the apex court issued show-cause notices to Raut and Wagle following remarks concerning Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and the judiciary. The bench previously exempted them from personal appearance on October 28 to consider their explanations.

During the hearing, senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing Wagle, stated that her client has tendered an unconditional apology for his social media posts and has deleted them. The bench noted that Wagle could appear virtually given the circumstances, while requesting Jaising's legal assistance in the matter.

Counsel appearing for the SCBA drew the court's attention to various social media posts made by Raut, arguing that they showed a lack of respect for the highest court of the country. The bench noted that while Raut has filed a reply affidavit, a copy was not officially on record, prompting the directive for his physical presence on November 17.

The controversy originated after the CJI declined a request for a personal meeting by an opposition delegation, stating the matter should be brought via petition. Subsequently, Wagle allegedly posted an abusive remark on X and later shared a letter tendering an unconditional apology to the CJI and the Supreme Court. Attorney General R Venkataramani had previously granted consent for initiating criminal contempt proceedings under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, following a petition filed by the SCBA on October 15.

The SCBA petition argued that statements made by Raut and Wagle went beyond fair criticism and could undermine public confidence and diminish the authority of the Supreme Court. The attorney general's consent letter noted that allegations made regarding judges attending political programmes were unsupported by facts, and that a Member of Parliament should have verified records before making such statements.

"This legal development highlights the critical importance of verified communication and institutional accountability, particularly when public figures comment on judicial bodies. For businesses and leaders alike, maintaining disciplined and factual public discourse is essential to avoid regulatory and legal liabilities. Governance and compliance extend beyond corporate operations into public communication, where adherence to facts protects organizational reputation and stability." — Dr. Shishir Gupta, Founder & CEO, StartupLanes