November 17, 2 pm: that is when Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut must be in the Supreme Court in person in the contempt petition over remarks about the Chief Justice of India, while journalist Nikhil Wagle may join virtually.
New Delhi: In the criminal contempt petition brought by the Supreme Court Bar Association over social media remarks about Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, the Supreme Court on October 28, 2026 directed that Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut appear in person on November 17 at 2 pm, and that journalist Nikhil Wagle join the proceedings virtually [Supreme Court Bar Association v. Nikhil Wagle and Another].
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard the matter, with Senior Advocate Indira Jaising appearing for Mr Wagle. What the petition contains is the Bar Association’s allegation and is untested. The Court has expressed no view on the merits, and both respondents are entitled to be heard before any finding is made.
Inside the courtroom
Ms Jaising told the Court that the post complained of had been deleted and that an unconditional apology had been tendered for Mr Wagle. A member of the Bench asked to see the affidavit, and counsel took the Court to the relevant portion of the affidavit on record.
The Court then directed that Mr Wagle join the next hearing virtually, with physical presence to be ordered if needed, and that Mr Raut be present in Court on November 17 at 2 pm. His response to the petition was not available at the time of writing, and the reasons for requiring his physical presence have not been reported.
Consent, petition and notice
Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 lets a body such as a bar association move the Supreme Court for criminal contempt only with the written consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. Attorney General R Venkataramani gave his consent on October 15, 2026, and the Association then filed its petition against Mr Wagle and Mr Raut.
On October 16, a Bench headed by the Chief Justice issued a show-cause notice asking both respondents why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. Both were exempted from personal appearance at that stage.
What has and has not been decided
A show-cause notice asks for an explanation; it is not a finding that contempt has been committed. Whether any contempt is made out, and where the line between criticism of the judiciary and contempt lies, will be for the Court at a later stage. Mr Wagle has apologised through counsel, and whether the Bench accepts the apology is for it to decide.
Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. Nikhil Wagle and Another (criminal contempt petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; case number not available)
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 28, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Indira Jaising for Nikhil Wagle; other counsel not named in the available record.