New Delhi, October 28, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut to appear physically before it on November 17 in a criminal contempt case arising from his alleged remarks against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant.
A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi also directed senior journalist Nikhil Wagle, the other proposed contemnor in the case, to appear virtually at the next hearing. The Bench observed that Wagle could be asked to appear physically the following week, if required.
The proceedings were initiated after the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) filed a criminal contempt petition over alleged remarks made by Raut and Wagle against the CJI.
During Wednesday’s hearing, the Bench was informed that Raut had submitted a reply affidavit, but a copy was not available on the court record. The Supreme Court directed its registry to place the affidavit on record and ordered the Shiv Sena (UBT) MP to remain physically present at the next hearing.
Senior advocate Pradeep Rai, appearing for the SCBA, submitted that Raut had made further remarks and alleged that Wagle had deleted his social media post only after receiving the court’s notice.
Rai also referred to Raut’s subsequent social media posts concerning the burning of the Supreme Court of Albania and the possibility of a similar incident occurring in India.
Appearing for Wagle, senior advocate Indira Jaising drew the Bench’s attention to his detailed affidavit, in which he tendered an unconditional apology for the controversial social media post and sought the discharge of the show-cause notice.
Jaising submitted that Wagle had expressed deep regret over the post and had no intention of justifying his remarks.
Taking note of Wagle’s deletion of the post and his expression of remorse, the Bench directed him to join the next hearing virtually, leaving open the possibility of requiring his physical presence at a later stage.
On October 16, the Supreme Court had issued notices to Raut and Wagle on the SCBA’s criminal contempt petition, asking them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. At that stage, the court had exempted both from personal appearance.
The controversy stems from remarks made by Raut during a media interaction on October 12. He claimed that he had seen 60 to 70 judges, including the CJI, playing badminton with BJP leaders in London.
The remarks followed the CJI’s decision not to meet Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, who had sought to submit a memorandum concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The CJI had stated that convening such a meeting to discuss pending cases would be contrary to the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
In its petition, the SCBA said it was pained to initiate contempt proceedings but believed that ignoring such remarks could encourage similar statements against the judiciary.
The matter will next be heard on November 17 at 2 p.m.
FOLLOW NOW
