New Delhi, Oct 28 The Supreme Court on Wednesday 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.
Observing that the issue pertains to the "entire institution of judiciary", a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi also directed journalist Nikhil Wagle to appear virtually before it on the next date of hearing.
On October 16, the apex court had issued show-cause notices to Raut and Wagle in the matter. The top court, however, had exempted them from personal appearance on October 28, saying it would first consider their explanations.
The show-cause notices were issued on a contempt plea filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).
After the hearing on Wednesday, 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," Raut told PTI.
During the hearing on Wednesday, senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for Wagle, said he has tendered an unconditional apology for his posts which were later deleted.
"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.
Senior advocate Pradeep Rai and other advocates, who appeared for the SCBA, referred to the X posts of Raut and Wagle and said these posts showed they don't have respect for the highest court of the country.
The bench noted that counsels appearing for the SCBA have submitted that 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. 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.
It noted that Jaising has brought to its notice the reply affidavit filed by Wagle and has prayed for discharge of the show-cause notice issued by the top court.
"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.
During the hearing, when Jaising said the court may discharge the show-cause notice issued against Wagle, the bench said it wanted her assistance in the matter.
"We request you to assist us. You will never say no, we know that," the bench told Jaising.
Jaising responded, "Because we love this institution. 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.
During the hearing in the matter on October 16, SCBA president and senior advocate Pradeep Rai had alleged that remarks by Raut and Wagle went beyond the bounds of fair criticism and were capable of undermining public confidence in the Supreme Court.
Earlier, Attorney General R 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 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.
According to the SCBA's petition, Wagle subsequently posted an allegedly abusive remark directed at the CJI on his X account.
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.
The journalist said he had deleted the earlier post and requested that the contempt matter not be pursued further.
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 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.
The high court had directed the removal of the content. In his consent letter, the attorney general said the remarks attributed to Wagle were abusive and inappropriate for public consumption.
Regarding Raut's allegations, the top law officer said claims about judges attending BJP programmes and chief ministers hosting dinners were not supported by facts.
Venkataramani also noted that the Delhi High Court's order on the photographs preceded Raut's statement. 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.
