Supreme Court Bar Association Moves Apex Court Over Remarks Against CJI Surya Kant Following Attorney General’s Consent
SCBA Criminal Contempt Petition Targets Journalist and MP
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has approached the Supreme Court against journalist Nikhil Wagle and Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut. The SCBA Criminal Contempt Petition concerns their public remarks against Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and the judiciary.
The association initiated the proceedings after obtaining written consent from Attorney General R. Venkataramani.
It filed the petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
SCBA President and Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai led the association’s legal action.
The petition alleges that both individuals made statements that undermined the dignity and authority of the judiciary.
SCBA Alleges Statements Scandalised the Judiciary
The SCBA raised concerns about comments that Wagle and Raut made on public platforms.
According to the association, their remarks attempted to discredit the Supreme Court and its judges.
The petition alleges that the statements deliberately scandalised the Court and questioned judicial impartiality.
Furthermore, the SCBA argued that such remarks could weaken public confidence in the judiciary.
The association also claimed that the comments attributed improper motives to judges.
Consequently, it sought criminal contempt proceedings against both individuals.
Nikhil Wagle’s Social Media Post Draws Contempt Allegations
The petition specifically refers to a social media post by senior journalist Nikhil Wagle.
According to the SCBA, Wagle published an offensive message targeting CJI Surya Kant.
The association described the post as explicit and containing profanity.
It also highlighted Wagle’s position as a senior journalist with a substantial public audience.
The SCBA argued that such statements could damage the judiciary’s reputation.
Moreover, the association alleged that the post lowered the authority of the Supreme Court.
The petition therefore identifies Wagle’s online remarks as one basis for the contempt action.
Sanjay Raut’s Remarks on Judges and Political Leaders
The petition also challenges statements by Sanjay Raut, a Rajya Sabha MP from Shiv Sena (UBT).
The controversy followed CJI Surya Kant’s reported decision to decline an in-person meeting with an opposition delegation.
The proposed meeting concerned protests over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Subsequently, Raut criticised the judiciary through public statements.
He alleged that judges attended political functions involving ruling-party leaders.
Additionally, he claimed that judges accepted dinner invitations from Chief Ministers.
Raut also referred to photographs allegedly showing judges playing badminton with political leaders in London.
The SCBA disputed these allegations and argued that they improperly suggested judicial bias.
Attorney General Grants Consent Under Contempt Law
Attorney General R. Venkataramani granted written consent for the criminal contempt proceedings.
Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provides a statutory procedure for initiating certain criminal contempt cases.
The Attorney General examined the disputed statements before granting consent.
He described the comments as prima facie:
“scandalous and intended to lower the esteem of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly the Chief Justice of India.”
Furthermore, the Attorney General addressed Raut’s allegation concerning judges playing badminton with political leaders.
He noted that the Delhi High Court had previously examined the allegation and found it factually false.
Accordingly, the Attorney General granted consent for the SCBA to pursue contempt proceedings.
Nikhil Wagle Tenders Unconditional Apology
In a related development, journalist Nikhil Wagle tendered an unconditional apology.
He described his controversial social media statement as an “emotional outburst.”
Additionally, Wagle confirmed that he had deleted the disputed post.
His apology followed the controversy surrounding his remarks against the Chief Justice.
However, the supplied account does not establish whether the Supreme Court has accepted the apology.
The SCBA’s petition and the apology remain separate developments in the reported controversy.
Criminal Contempt Petition Raises Judicial Accountability Issues
The SCBA Criminal Contempt Petition centres on allegations that public remarks undermined the authority of the Supreme Court.
The association maintains that the statements crossed the limits of permissible criticism.
Meanwhile, the Attorney General’s consent allows the association to pursue the statutory contempt process.
However, that consent does not itself establish criminal contempt or determine the respondents’ liability.
The Supreme Court must independently examine the allegations and applicable legal standards.
The case therefore raises questions about judicial authority, public criticism, and the legal boundaries of contempt proceedings.
For now, the SCBA has initiated legal action against Nikhil Wagle and Sanjay Raut.
The Court’s eventual consideration of the petition will determine the next steps.
