The Supreme Court on Friday issued show-cause notices to Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle in criminal contempt proceedings over their public remarks concerning Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and the judiciary — a rare and significant move that puts the spotlight on the boundaries of criticism of the courts.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Kant himself and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued the notices while hearing a criminal contempt petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). The bench, however, exempted Raut and Wagle from personal appearance on the next date of hearing, saying it would first consider their explanations. The matter has been posted for hearing after two weeks.
"Attacks on institution are deeply unfortunate," the bench observed during the hearing. Chief Justice Kant added: "People don't understand that they are being trapped." Expanding on the theme, he said: "The courts have never lagged behind in protecting rights. If you still keep condemning, it's very unfortunate. Hope better sense prevails on everyone."
The notices were issued a day after the SCBA moved the court seeking contempt proceedings against the two men. SCBA president and senior advocate Pradeep Kumar Rai, who argued the petition, alleged that the remarks by Raut and Wagle went beyond the bounds of fair criticism and were capable of undermining public confidence in the Supreme Court. Rai urged the court to seek the personal presence of the respondents, but the bench declined, choosing the show-cause route first. "We are giving a show-cause as of now. Of course we are granting exemption for personal appearance. Let us see," the bench said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported the SCBA's plea, telling the court: "Many of them understand, and they do it deliberately. The attempt is to bring pressure on courts."
According to the SCBA's petition, the controversy began after the Chief Justice declined a request for a personal meeting by a delegation of Opposition parties on October 12, indicating that the matter the delegation wished to raise could instead be brought before the court through a formal petition. Raut then allegedly made "deliberately misleading and disparaging" remarks against the Chief Justice.
The petition claims Raut alleged that judges attend political events of the ruling BJP and participate in dinners hosted by chief ministers, while refusing to meet Opposition leaders. He also allegedly referred to photographs of judges playing badminton with political figures in London and levelled allegations against the Chief Justice and other judges. Separately, the petition says, Wagle posted an alleged abusive remark directed at the Chief Justice on his X account.
The legal foundation for the proceedings was laid swiftly. The SCBA filed its petition under Article 129 of the Constitution — which empowers the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of itself — along with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. Those rules require the prior consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General before criminal contempt proceedings can be initiated. The SCBA approached Attorney General R Venkataramani on Wednesday, and consent was granted on Thursday. Venkataramani was of the view that the posts by Wagle and Raut were prima facie scandalous and intended to lower the esteem of the Supreme Court and particularly the Chief Justice.
Criminal contempt — as distinct from civil contempt, which concerns disobedience of court orders — covers publications or acts that scandalise the court, prejudice or interfere with judicial proceedings, or obstruct the administration of justice. The punishment can extend to six months' imprisonment, a fine, or both. Courts have repeatedly held that while fair criticism of judicial decisions is protected speech, personal attacks on judges that lower the authority of the court cross the line.
The case arrives at a moment of unusual friction between the judiciary and sections of the political class. In recent weeks, the Supreme Court has been at the centre of several politically charged matters, from electoral roll revisions to protest-related petitions, and its orders have drawn sharp reactions across the spectrum. The bench's remark that critics "don't understand they are being trapped" hinted at the court's view that some of the commentary is orchestrated rather than spontaneous.
Raut, one of the most combative spokespersons of the Shiv Sena (UBT), has a long history of confrontational rhetoric against institutions he accuses of bias. Wagle, a veteran journalist known for his trenchant views, has frequently courted controversy with his social media posts. Both now face the prospect of having to explain their remarks to the very institution they criticised — with the Chief Justice himself on the bench that will hear their explanations, a circumstance that is bound to draw comment on questions of propriety.
Legal experts note that the court's decision to issue show-cause notices rather than taking a harsher immediate step — and to exempt personal appearance for now — suggests a calibrated approach: a firm signal that the court will defend its institutional dignity, coupled with procedural fairness that gives the respondents a full opportunity to explain or apologise. In contempt jurisprudence, an unconditional apology tendered at the earliest opportunity has often led courts to drop proceedings, though courts have also insisted that apologies must be genuine and not merely tactical.
The SCBA's role in initiating the case is itself significant. As the apex body of Supreme Court lawyers, its decision to move for contempt reflects concern within the legal fraternity that sustained personal attacks on judges could erode public faith in the justice system. Critics of contempt law, on the other hand, argue that it can chill legitimate scrutiny of judicial functioning and that public figures should tolerate robust — even intemperate — criticism.
What the two men say in response to the show-cause notices will determine the next chapter. If their explanations satisfy the court, the matter could end quietly in two weeks. If not, the court could frame formal charges and proceed to a full contempt trial — a spectacle that would keep the judiciary-politics confrontation in the headlines. Either way, the notices have already sent an unmistakable message from the highest court: criticism of judgments is one thing; personalised attacks on the institution are quite another.
(Reporting based on NDTV, Hindustan Times, The Hindu and Oneindia.)