The Supreme Court on Friday initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle, directing both individuals to explain public statements made against Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and the judiciary.
A bench led by CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued show-cause notices in response to a petition moved by the Supreme Court Bar Association. While the bar body requested that the respondents be directed to appear before the court in person, the judges declined the plea for the upcoming proceedings, noting that the bench would first review their formal written responses before deciding on further steps.
During the hearing, CJI Kant voiced concern over targeted statements directed at judicial institutions. He pointed out that because the judiciary regularly protects constitutional liberties and basic personal rights, unwarranted attacks against it remain deeply regrettable.
SCBA Action and Legal Consents
The legal action originated from an initiative by the Supreme Court Bar Association, represented by its president, senior advocate Pradeep Rai. In its petition, the bar association argued that statements published by both Raut and Wagle crossed the threshold of permissible, fair critique and carried the potential to erode public trust in the country’s highest judicial forum.
Under statutory requirements governing contempt actions, Attorney General R Venkataramani evaluated the matter and granted formal clearance under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Both the filing of the SCBA petition and the attorney general’s formal authorization took place on October 15.
Origins of the Dispute
The developments stem from public reactions after CJI Kant declined an in-person appointment sought by an opposition delegation. The Chief Justice had directed that any grievance or issue be presented through a formal court petition rather than an informal gathering.
In the aftermath of that decision, the SCBA stated in its filing that Wagle published an allegedly abusive statement targeting the CJI on the social media platform X. Although reports indicate that Wagle subsequently took down the online post, the bar association cited it in its filing alongside separate statements by Raut, which were also characterized as objectionable.
