The Supreme Court Bar Association has asked India’s Supreme Court to pursue criminal contempt charges against journalist Nikhil Wagle and Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut over statements they made about Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The Attorney General, R. Venkataramani, granted consent for the proceedings on 15 October 2026, the same day the SCBA filed its petition under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Attorney General described the statements as prima facie scandalous and said they appeared intended to lower the esteem of the Supreme Court and its Chief Justice. The case follows public criticism of CJI Kant after he declined a request from opposition parties for a personal meeting, suggesting they approach the court through a formal petition instead.
Wagle’s involvement stems from an abusive post he published on X (formerly Twitter) in response to a report by The Hindu about the CJI’s decision. The post included the phrase “ you CJI!”. The SCBA argued that the statements went beyond legitimate criticism of the judiciary. Wagle later deleted the post and issued an unconditional apology to the CJI and the Supreme Court, requesting that the Attorney General drop the matter. However, the apology does not automatically halt legal proceedings.
The Attorney General described Wagle’s post as abusive and said it was not a statement that a reasonable person would make for public consumption.
MP’s Allegations Spark Legal Backlash
Sanjay Raut’s case centers on remarks he made to the media, shared via IANS on X on 12 October. He alleged that judges had attended BJP political programs in states where the party held power, that chief ministers had hosted dinners for Supreme Court and High Court judges, and that photographs of judges playing badminton with political figures in London were evidence of improper ties.
The SCBA challenged the factual basis of Raut’s claims, pointing to a Delhi High Court order from 19 June 2026 that debunked the London badminton photographs. The court had ruled they were actually taken at Thyagaraj Stadium in New Delhi in November 2025 and directed their removal. The Attorney General said the allegations about judges attending BJP programmes and chief ministers hosting dinners were not supported by facts.
The SCBA has asked the court to direct social media platforms and other organisations to preserve relevant posts, videos and account records. It also requests an interim restraint on Wagle and Raut from making similar allegations while the case is pending. The SCBA has stated that it does not seek to prevent fair and temperate criticism of the judiciary. Its position is that the language and allegations used by the respondents went beyond acceptable criticism and were capable of lowering the authority of the court.
Contempt Law’s Threefold Test Explained
Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, criminal contempt includes acts that scandalize the judiciary, prejudice judicial proceedings, or obstruct the administration of justice. Courts assess whether statements meet this threshold by examining their content, context, and potential effect. While reasoned disagreement with judicial decisions is protected, abusive language or unfounded allegations may qualify as contempt.
The Attorney General’s consent does not determine guilt but allows the matter to proceed. The Supreme Court will now decide whether the statements by Wagle and Raut meet the legal standard for contempt. Wagle’s apology may factor into the court’s consideration, but its impact remains uncertain. The case tests where the line lies between legitimate criticism and conduct that undermines judicial authority.
The SCBA’s petition shows a long-standing tension: balancing the right to criticize public institutions with the need to protect the judiciary’s independence. Allegations of judicial impropriety can erode trust, but unfounded claims risk chilling legitimate debate. The outcome will hinge on whether the court views the statements as scandalous or as part of political or journalistic discourse.
For now, the Attorney General’s approval marks the first step in what could become a landmark test of free speech and judicial contempt in India. The next phase will depend on how the Supreme Court weighs the SCBA’s arguments against the defenses of Wagle and Raut.
Court to Decide Free Speech Limits
The Attorney General’s consent letter explicitly notes that the proceedings will hinge on whether the statements in question meet the threefold test established in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994): whether the publication is likely to interfere with the administration of justice, whether it lowers the authority of the court, or whether it prejudices judicial proceedings.
In this case, the SCBA has framed its arguments around the second prong—whether Wagle’s post and Raut’s claims, when disseminated publicly, diminished the Supreme Court’s standing. The Attorney General’s assessment that both sets of statements were prima facie scandalous suggests he believes they satisfy at least one of these criteria, though the court’s final determination will require a closer examination of intent, context, and potential harm.
This measure is standard in contempt cases to prevent the destruction of evidence, particularly when statements are made on ephemeral platforms like X or Facebook. The SCBA has specified that the order should cover not only the original posts by Wagle and Raut but also any subsequent amplifications, replies, or media reports that may have repeated or reinforced the allegations. The court’s decision on this request will depend on whether it views the material as potentially relevant to proving contempt, though preservation orders are routinely granted in such proceedings to avoid prejudicing the inquiry.
Leave a Reply