Provisional, and conditional: the Supreme Court has entertained Sanjay Raut’s petition in the INDIA bloc leaders’ challenge to the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) only provisionally, on the footing that he explains his public remarks about the Chief Justice of India and judges [Rahul Gandhi and Others v. Election Commission of India and Others]
New Delhi: In W.P.(C) No. 1351/2026, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi recorded the order on Thursday, 15 October 2026.
The exchange and the order
The Attorney General told the Bench that a claim Raut had made about judges was false, citing a Delhi High Court order, and that the remarks lowered the dignity of the judiciary. The CJI observed that one of the petitioners would have to explain his conduct, adding that the judges were aware of statements made outside the courtroom and were not living in “ivory towers”.
The order recorded:
“the petition on behalf of Petitioner No. 6 is entertained on a provisional basis, subject to his explaining his conduct.”
Contempt consent and the writ petition are separate
Under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a private person who wishes to initiate criminal contempt of the Supreme Court must first obtain the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, after which the Court decides on notice. Raut’s provisional participation in the writ petition is a separate step from the contempt proceedings. The Court has expressed no view on whether any remark amounts to contempt, and the order records no finding against him.
The petition and Petitioner No. 6
The petition was filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders, and challenges decisions of the Election Commission in the SIR of electoral rolls. It seeks disclosure of the Commission’s files, minutes, notings and objections recorded by Election Commissioners on disputed SIR decisions, and an independent audit panel to examine alleged irregularities. At the same hearing, the Court issued notice to the Election Commission on the leaders’ petition. The Commission’s response is yet to be placed before the Court, and the allegations in the petition are untested.
Sanjay Raut, a Rajya Sabha MP of the Shiv Sena (UBT), is Petitioner No. 6. Earlier this week he had publicly criticised the Chief Justice for declining a meeting request from the Leader of the Opposition on the Commission’s functioning, and made remarks about judges’ interactions with political leaders. The Attorney General R Venkataramani has since granted consent to the Supreme Court Bar Association to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle over comments on the judiciary and the Chief Justice.
The Bar Association has said that photographs circulated in support of one claim were from an event at Thyagaraj Stadium, New Delhi, in November 2025. Raut’s response to the contempt petition has not been placed before the Court, and the allegations remain untested.
What happens next
Raut’s access to the Court in the SIR challenge now depends on his explanation, while the other leaders’ petition proceeds on notice. The writ petition is returnable on 27 October 2026, and the main group of Delhi protest and SIR matters is listed on 3 November 2026. What Raut says in response will determine whether his petition continues on the same footing as the others. The Court has not indicated any view on the merits of the SIR challenge.
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi and Others v. Election Commission of India and Others, W.P.(C) No. 1351/2026
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 15, 2026