Court Provisionally Entertains Shiv Sena (UBT) MP’s Petition Challenging Electoral Roll Revision; Attorney General Grants Consent for Contempt Proceedings
Sanjay Raut Supreme Court Petition Faces Conditional Acceptance
The Supreme Court on Thursday, October 15, directed Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut to explain his remarks against the judiciary. The Sanjay Raut Supreme Court development arose during a joint petition challenging the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi considered the petition.
The Court issued notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
However, it placed a specific condition on Raut’s participation in the proceedings.
The Bench provisionally entertained his petition, subject to an explanation of his conduct.
Supreme Court Records Condition in Written Order
The Court specifically addressed Raut’s position as Petitioner No. 6 in the joint writ petition.
It recorded the following observation:
“In W.P. (C) No. 1351/2026 (Item 25), the petition on behalf of Petitioner No. 6 is entertained on a provisional basis, subject to his explaining his conduct.”
Therefore, Raut’s participation remains conditional until he explains his statements.
The Court’s direction followed controversy over his public remarks concerning the Chief Justice and other judges.
Meanwhile, the main constitutional challenge to the SIR exercise remains before the Supreme Court.
Attorney General Grants Consent for Contempt Action
Separately, Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani granted consent for criminal contempt proceedings against Sanjay Raut.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) had sought permission to initiate the action.
The Attorney General granted consent under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The controversy arose from Raut’s criticism of CJI Surya Kant.
Raut questioned the Chief Justice’s reported decision not to meet Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi in person.
The proposed meeting concerned the ongoing electoral roll revision exercise.
Furthermore, Raut made allegations about judges interacting with political leaders outside official proceedings.
Allegations Involving Judges and BJP Leaders
Raut alleged that judges, including the CJI, attended dinner gatherings with Union Ministers.
He also claimed that judges played badminton with BJP leaders in London.
These allegations formed part of the controversy surrounding his public statements.
However, the Attorney General referred to an earlier Delhi High Court ruling while granting contempt consent.
According to the Attorney General, that ruling had established that the badminton allegation was factually false and scandalous.
Consequently, the allegations became relevant to the proposed criminal contempt proceedings.
CJI Says Judges Are Aware of Public Remarks
During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant addressed the broader issue of comments made outside courtrooms.
He observed that judges remain aware of public statements concerning the judiciary.
Moreover, the Chief Justice indicated that judges do not live in “ivory towers.”
The observation came during oral exchanges about remarks directed at the judiciary.
Nevertheless, the Bench allowed Raut’s petition to proceed provisionally.
It also required him to explain his conduct.
INDIA Bloc Leaders Challenge Electoral Roll Revision
The joint petition involves 13 prominent opposition leaders from the INDIA bloc.
They have challenged the Election Commission’s implementation of the Special Intensive Revision across several states.
The petitioners include:
- Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge — Congress
- Saugata Roy — Trinamool Congress (TMC)
- Akhilesh Yadav — Samajwadi Party (SP)
- Tejashwi Prasad Yadav — Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD)
- M.A. Baby — CPI(M)
- D. Raja — CPI
- Mahua Majhi — Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM)
- Supriya Sule — NCP (Sharad Pawar)
- E.T. Muhammed Basheer — Indian Union Muslim League (IUML)
- Thol. Thirumaavalavan — Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK)
- Sajjad Ahmad Kichloo — Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (JKNC)
- Sanjay Raut — Shiv Sena (UBT)
The opposition leaders seek judicial intervention in the electoral roll revision process.
Additionally, they have raised concerns about transparency and decision-making within the Election Commission.
Petition Seeks Disclosure of ECI Records
The petitioners have requested several directions concerning the SIR exercise.
First, they seek full disclosure of the ECI’s internal file notings and dissent records.
Second, they want the Commission to follow collective decision-making requirements under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.
Furthermore, the petition requests an independent audit panel headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.
The leaders also seek an interim stay on the ongoing SIR process.
Accordingly, the petition raises questions about electoral transparency and the Commission’s procedures.
Supreme Court Proceedings to Continue
The Supreme Court has issued notices to the ECI and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
However, the Court has attached a specific condition to Sanjay Raut’s participation.
He must explain his public statements concerning the Chief Justice and the judiciary.
Meanwhile, the Attorney General’s consent has opened the way for separate criminal contempt proceedings.
The Sanjay Raut Supreme Court matter therefore involves two distinct legal developments.
One concerns his conditional participation in the constitutional challenge to the SIR exercise.
The other relates to the proposed contempt action over his public remarks.
The Supreme Court will consider the SIR challenge through the ongoing judicial proceedings.
