SC orders Sanjay Raut to appear in person on Nov 17 in contempt case
Synopsis
The Supreme Court has summoned Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut for in-person appearance on 17 November in a criminal contempt case — sparked by his claim that he saw 60–70 judges, including the CJI, playing badminton with BJP leaders in London. With Raut allegedly doubling down on social media even after notice, and journalist Nikhil Wagle having tendered an unconditional apology, the case has split into two sharply contrasting legal trajectories.
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court ordered Sanjay Raut to appear physically on 17 November in a criminal contempt case over alleged remarks against CJI Surya Kant .
Senior journalist Nikhil Wagle , the second proposed contemnor, was directed to appear virtually on the same date, after tendering an unconditional apology.
The SCBA initiated contempt proceedings after Raut claimed on 12 October that he saw 60–70 judges , including the CJI, playing badminton with BJP leaders in London.
Senior advocate Pradeep Rai (for SCBA) submitted that Raut made further remarks even after notice was served, including social media posts referencing the burning of the Supreme Court of Albania.
The next hearing is fixed for 17 November at 2 pm .
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 28 October 2025, directed Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha member Sanjay Raut to appear physically before it on 17 November in a criminal contempt case arising from his alleged remarks against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant. The order came from a Bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar, joined by Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.
Background: What Triggered the Contempt Proceedings
The controversy traces back to 12 October, when Raut claimed during a media interaction that he had witnessed 60 to 70 judges, including the CJI, playing badminton with Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders in London. The remarks followed the CJI's refusal to meet Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge to accept a memorandum on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The CJI had stated that such a meeting would violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
Senior journalist Nikhil Wagle is the second proposed contemnor in the matter. The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) initiated the criminal contempt petition against both Raut and Wagle over their respective alleged remarks targeting the CJI. The court had first issued notice on 16 October, at which stage both were exempted from personal appearance.
What the Court Ordered on Wednesday
The Bench directed the registry to place Raut's reply affidavit — which had been filed but was not available on record — before the court. Raut was specifically ordered to remain physically present at the 17 November hearing, scheduled for 2 pm.
Wagle, by contrast, was directed to appear virtually on that date, with the possibility of physical appearance to be considered the following week, if required. The court took note of Wagle's deletion of the contentious social media post and his expression of remorse.
Arguments Made Before the Bench
Senior advocate Pradeep Rai, appearing for the SCBA, submitted that Raut had made further remarks even after proceedings were initiated, and that Wagle had deleted his post only after being served notice. Rai also drew the court's attention to Raut's subsequent social media posts referencing the burning of the Supreme Court of Albania and drawing a parallel to India.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for Wagle, highlighted his detailed affidavit in which he tendered an unconditional apology for the controversial social media post and sought discharge of the show-cause notice. Jaising submitted that Wagle had expressed deep regret and did not intend to justify his remarks.
SCBA's Stand and What Happens Next
The SCBA stated it was pained to initiate contempt proceedings but felt that ignoring such remarks could encourage similar statements against the judiciary. Notably, this case sits at the intersection of free speech, judicial dignity, and the constitutional limits of political commentary — questions the court will have to weigh carefully on 17 November.
The divergent treatment of the two contemnors — one ordered to appear in person, the other virtually — signals that the Bench views the two cases differently at this stage, with Raut's alleged continued conduct drawing sharper judicial attention. The next hearing will be closely watched for whether the court proceeds to frame charges or accepts any tendered apology.
Point of View
Not a routine procedural step. Courts rarely differentiate so visibly between co-respondents at the same stage unless one's conduct has materially worsened. The allegation that Raut continued posting on social media after receiving notice, including references to the Albania court fire, suggests the Bench is tracking an escalating pattern rather than a one-off remark. The deeper question this case raises — where the line sits between robust political criticism and contemptuous attacks on judicial character — remains unresolved, and the November 17 hearing will test whether the court is willing to draw that line sharply against a sitting parliamentarian.
NationPress
28 Oct 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is Sanjay Raut facing criminal contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court?
Sanjay Raut is facing criminal contempt proceedings after he claimed on 12 October that he had seen 60 to 70 judges, including CJI Surya Kant, playing badminton with BJP leaders in London. The Supreme Court Bar Association filed a criminal contempt petition over these remarks, arguing they scandalised the judiciary.
What did the Supreme Court order on 28 October in the contempt case?
The Supreme Court directed Sanjay Raut to appear physically before it on 17 November at 2 pm, and ordered the registry to place his reply affidavit on record. Co-contemnor Nikhil Wagle was directed to appear virtually on the same date, with physical appearance to be considered later.
Who is Nikhil Wagle and what is his role in the case?
Nikhil Wagle is a senior journalist named as the second proposed contemnor in the SCBA's criminal contempt petition. Unlike Raut, Wagle has filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology for his social media post and sought discharge of the show-cause notice, prompting the court to allow virtual appearance.
What was the context behind Raut's original remarks about the CJI?
Raut made the remarks after CJI Surya Kant declined to meet Rahul Gandhi and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge to receive a memorandum on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The CJI stated that such a meeting would violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
What happens at the 17 November hearing?
The Supreme Court will hear the criminal contempt matter on 17 November at 2 pm, with Raut required to be physically present. The Bench is expected to consider whether to formally frame charges, or to take on record any apology or explanation, given the contrasting positions of the two contemnors.
