The Supreme Court on Friday, 16 October 2026, issued criminal contempt notices to Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha member Sanjay Raut and senior journalist Nikhil Wagle following a petition by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) over their alleged remarks targeting the Chief Justice of India (CJI). A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed both to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be formally initiated, while exempting them from personal appearance at this stage.

Background: What Triggered the Contempt Action

The controversy centres on remarks made by Raut during a media interaction on 12 October, in which he claimed to have seen 60 to 70 judges — including the CJI — playing badminton with Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders in London. The remarks came after CJI Surya Kant declined a meeting with Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and Indian National Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, who had sought to hand over a memorandum concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The CJI had explained that convening such a meeting to discuss pending cases would contravene the constitutional principle of separation of powers — an intrinsic facet of the basic structure doctrine.

What the SCBA and Government Argued

Appearing for the SCBA, senior advocate Pradeep Rai submitted that the lawyers' association was pained to initiate proceedings but felt that allowing such remarks to pass unchallenged could embolden similar statements in the future. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was present in the courtroom, argued that some individuals made such remarks deliberately, mistakenly believing they could exert pressure on the judiciary — attempts he said were ultimately futile.

CJI's Observations From the Bench

During the hearing, CJI Kant observed that people often failed to realise they were being manipulated by those instigating them. He noted that courts had never lagged behind in protecting citizens' rights, adding that it was unfortunate that criticism persisted despite this record, and expressed hope that 'better sense would prevail.'

Wagle's Apology and Separate Proceedings Against Raut

Journalist Nikhil Wagle, who had posted an objectionable remark against the CJI on his X handle on 11 October, addressed a letter to Attorney General R. Venkataramani stating he had deleted the post and tendered an unconditional apology to the CJI and the Supreme Court. Wagle described the post as an emotional outburst stemming from anguish and frustration with the system, and said he did not seek to justify the language used.

In a related but separate development, the Supreme Court on Thursday sought an explanation from Raut over his conduct, while provisionally entertaining his petition — filed as part of a challenge by Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders to the Election Commission of India's (ECI) SIR exercise. The bench directed Raut's petition be entertained provisionally, subject to his explaining his conduct. The apex court also issued notice on the opposition's plea — returnable on 27 October — directing it be tagged with a pending batch of petitions on the same subject.

As both the contempt proceedings and the electoral rolls challenge move forward, the dual exposure facing Raut — as a party to a political petition and as a respondent in a contempt case — will test how the court balances free speech, judicial dignity, and democratic accountability in the weeks ahead.