A criminal contempt petition was filed on Thursday in the Supreme Court against Shiv Sena (UBT) lawmaker Sanjay Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle for making derogatory remarks against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on social media earlier this week after he turned down a request to meet Opposition leaders.
The petition was filed by Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) through its president and senior advocate Pradeep Kumar Rai under Article 129 of the Constitution 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. “The said statements are not correct as it is evident from the order dated June 19, 2026 passed by the Delhi high court in Badminton Association of India v.
The SCBA said that the “deliberate and intentional statements” made by Raut are false and contrary to records as it produced an order of June 19 passed by the Delhi high court where it was made clear that the photograph of judges playing badminton was of an event held at Thyagraj stadium last year and not in London. The petition states that the false statements were knowingly made to “scandalise and diminish the authority of the Supreme Court” which amounts to contempt of court. Union of India,” teh petition said.
The deliberate and intentional scandalous statements, knowing that it would lower the authority of this court, warrants strict action against the respondents in accordance with law.” 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. After receiving the consent on Thursday, the SCBA filed the petition which said, “The petitioner submits that the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court is integral to the maintenance of public confidence in the administration of justice and the rule of law.
