The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 28, 2026) directed Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut to appear before it in person on November 17 in contempt proceedings over remarks concerning Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and the judiciary.
Pancholi also directed journalist Nikhil Wagle to appear virtually before it on the next date of hearing. Raut and Mr. Wagle in the matter. The show-cause notices were issued on a contempt plea filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). Senior advocate Pradeep Rai and other advocates, who appeared for the SCBA, referred to the X posts of Mr. The bench noted that counsels appearing for the SCBA have submitted that Mr. Raut has 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. It noted that Mr. Jaising has brought to its notice the reply affidavit filed by Mr. Wagle and has prayed for discharge of the show-cause notice issued by the Supreme Court.
On October 16, the apex court had issued show-cause notices to Mr. The court, however, had exempted them from personal appearance on October 28, saying it would first consider their explanations. After the hearing on Wednesday (October 28), Mr. During the hearing on Wednesday (October 28), senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for Wagle, said he has tendered an unconditional apology for his posts which were later deleted.
Observing that the issue pertains to the “entire institution of judiciary”, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Raut said he will remain present in the top court as directed in the matter. He said he was not fully aware of what transpired in the court as his lawyers were not present. “I will remain present in the court,” Mr. Raut told PTI . “Now that he (Wagle) has deleted and expressed remorse and tendered unconditional apology, let him appear,” the bench observed, adding that Wagle can appear before the court virtually. “This is an issue which pertains to the entire institution of judiciary,” the bench observed. Wagle and said these posts showed they don’t have respect for the highest court of the country. However, copy of the said affidavit is not on record,” the bench 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 while posting the matter for November 17.
Regarding Mr. Venkataramani also noted that the Delhi High Court’s order on the photographs preceded Mr. Raut’s statement.
Raut’s allegations, the top law officer said claims about judges attending BJP programmes and Chief Ministers hosting dinners were not supported by facts. He said an MP should have verified the facts before making allegations of such a nature. The SCBA said that it did not seek to curtail fair criticism of the judiciary. However, the statements in question crossed that line and could scandalise the court and diminish its authority, the bar body said.
But the institution must also love us. It has to be a mutual love. It can’t be a one-way love”. The bench observed it is never a one-way traffic. Raut and Mr. Wagle went beyond the bounds of fair criticism and were capable of undermining public confidence in the Supreme Court. Wagle subsequently posted an allegedly abusive remark directed at the CJI on his X account. Mr. Wagle later shared on X a letter addressed to the attorney general in which he tendered an unconditional apology to the CJI and the Supreme Court. Mr. Raut also made some alleged objectionable remarks. The SCBA has challenged Raut’s remarks, saying that the allegations against the judiciary were contrary to the available record. The High Court had directed the removal of the content. Wagle were abusive and inappropriate for public consumption.
During the hearing in the matter on October 16, SCBA president and senior advocate Pradeep Rai had alleged that remarks by Mr. Venkataramani had granted consent for initiating 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 the same day. 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.
Jaising responded, “Because we love this institution.
Mr, according to the SCBA’s petition. The journalist said he had deleted the earlier post and requested that the contempt matter not be pursued further. In his consent letter, the attorney general said the remarks attributed to Mr.
Earlier, Attorney General R. The controversy followed the CJI’s decision to decline a request for a personal meeting by a delegation of opposition parties, indicating that the matter could instead be brought before the court through a petition.
During the hearing, when Mr. “We request you to assist us.
“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. Jaising said the court may discharge the show-cause notice issued against Mr. Wagle, the bench said it wanted her assistance in the matter. You will never say no, we know that,” the bench told Jaising.
