Supreme Court Directs Sanjay Raut to Appear in Person on November 17 in Contempt Case Over CJI Remarks

Supreme Court Directs Sanjay Raut to Appear on November 17

The Supreme Court has directed Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut to appear physically before it on November 17, 2026, in a criminal contempt case concerning his remarks about Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and the judiciary.

A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi issued the direction on October 28 while hearing a petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).

The court has scheduled the next hearing for November 17 at 2 pm. The proceedings concern allegations that public statements by Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle crossed the boundaries of fair criticism of the judiciary.

What Is the Contempt Case Against Sanjay Raut?

The proceedings were initiated after the SCBA approached the Supreme Court over remarks attributed to Raut and Wagle concerning the Chief Justice and the functioning of the judiciary.

The petition was filed after Attorney General R. Venkataramani granted consent for criminal contempt proceedings under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The SCBA has argued that the statements in question could undermine public confidence in the Supreme Court and diminish the authority of the judicial institution.

The allegations are currently before the court. The proceedings have not, by themselves, established Raut's guilt of contempt.

Why Did the Controversy Begin?

The controversy arose after CJI Surya Kant declined a request for an in-person meeting with a delegation of opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, concerning issues related to the Election Commission of India and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Following the refusal, journalist Nikhil Wagle published a controversial post on X targeting the Chief Justice. The post was subsequently deleted, and Wagle later tendered an unconditional apology.

Raut also made public remarks concerning the judiciary, including allegations about judges attending political events and interacting with political leaders. These statements became part of the material cited in the contempt proceedings.

The SCBA subsequently sought action, arguing that the remarks went beyond legitimate criticism and could damage the reputation of the judiciary.

Journalist Nikhil Wagle Allowed to Appear Virtually

While directing Raut to appear physically, the Supreme Court permitted journalist Nikhil Wagle to participate in the November 17 hearing through video conferencing.

Wagle's counsel, senior advocate Indira Jaising, informed the bench that her client had filed an affidavit containing an unconditional apology. She also said that Wagle had deleted the controversial social-media post and expressed remorse.

The court took note of the submission and permitted his virtual appearance at the next hearing.

Wagle's counsel also requested that the show-cause notice issued to him be withdrawn in light of the apology. The court has yet to conclude the proceedings.

Why Did the Court Insist on Raut's Personal Appearance?

During the hearing, the bench noted that although a vakalatnama had reportedly been filed on Raut's behalf, no lawyer appeared for him and the reply affidavit referred to during the proceedings was not available on the court record.

The court subsequently directed Raut to remain physically present on the next hearing date.

The bench also emphasised the institutional importance of the matter, observing that it concerned the judiciary as a whole.

Raut later told reporters that he would appear before the Supreme Court as directed. He also said he was not fully aware of what had transpired during the hearing because his lawyers were not present.

What Is Criminal Contempt of Court?

Criminal contempt generally concerns conduct or publications that scandalise or tend to scandalise a court, prejudice judicial proceedings, or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice.

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provides the legal framework governing contempt proceedings in India.

However, criticism of judicial decisions and institutions is not automatically contempt. The legal question in an individual case depends on the nature of the statements, their context and whether they meet the applicable legal standard.

In Raut's case, the Supreme Court will consider the allegations and the material placed before it before determining the next course of action.

What Happens Next?

The matter will return to the Supreme Court on November 17, 2026, at 2 pm.

Raut has been directed to attend physically, while Wagle may join through video conferencing. The court will continue examining the contempt proceedings and the responses submitted by the parties.

The outcome will depend on the court's assessment of the statements, the explanations offered and the applicable legal principles governing criminal contempt.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has directed Sanjay Raut to appear in person on November 17, 2026.

• The case concerns criminal contempt proceedings over remarks about CJI Surya Kant and the judiciary.

• The Supreme Court Bar Association initiated the proceedings after obtaining the Attorney General's consent.

• Journalist Nikhil Wagle has tendered an unconditional apology and deleted his controversial social-media post.

• Wagle has been permitted to appear virtually at the next hearing.

• The court noted that Raut's reply affidavit was not available on the record during the hearing.

• Raut has said he will comply with the court's direction.

• The contempt allegations remain subject to judicial consideration.

Bottom Line

The Supreme Court's direction requiring Sanjay Raut to appear in person on November 17 marks the next stage in the criminal contempt proceedings arising from remarks concerning CJI Surya Kant and the judiciary. While journalist Nikhil Wagle has tendered an unconditional apology and received permission to appear virtually, Raut must attend the hearing physically. The court will continue examining the matter before deciding its further course.