Supreme Court: Contempt Notice Issued to Sanjay Raut, Nikhil Wagle

• The Supreme Court issued a contempt of court notice to journalist Nikhil Wagle and Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut.
• The notice concerns their statements criticizing CJI Surya Kant and the judiciary, specifically his refusal to meet an opposition delegation.
• The Supreme Court Bar Association filed the petition that led to the notice.
• The bench, comprising CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, ordered Wagle and Raut to show cause but exempted them from personal appearance.
• CJI Kant expressed regret that individuals who previously sought judicial protection now criticize the institution.

Lawyers advising clients, particularly those in public life or media, must emphasize the strict boundaries of permissible criticism of the judiciary in India.

The Supreme Court of India recently issued a contempt of court notice to two prominent individuals: journalist Nikhil Wagle and Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament, Sanjay Raut. This action stems from statements they made concerning Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and the broader judiciary. The notice was issued on a Friday by a bench comprising CJI Kant himself and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, following a petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).

The court's order in the case, titled *Supreme Court Bar Association v Nikhil Wagle and Anr*, directs both Wagle and Raut to provide a show-cause explanation as to why contempt proceedings should not be formally initiated against them. Despite the serious nature of the notice, the bench declined a request to compel their personal appearance at this initial stage. CJI Kant stated, "We are giving a show cause ... as of now we are granting exemption for personal appearance. Let us see," indicating a measured approach to the matter.

The specific remarks made by Nikhil Wagle and Sanjay Raut that led to the Supreme Court contempt notice involved their criticism of CJI Kant's decision to refuse a meeting with a delegation of opposition parties. This delegation, led by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, had sought a personal audience with the Chief Justice. The court's decision to take cognizance of these comments underscores the strict boundaries surrounding public commentary on judicial actions and personnel in India.

CJI Kant, while presiding over the bench, expressed his disappointment regarding such criticism. He highlighted the judiciary's consistent role in safeguarding individual liberties and rights, noting that those who now criticize the institution have historically sought its intervention. "When personal liberty or any rights are jeopardised, each one of them has, in the past also, come to the Court seeking rescue. Probably the courts have never lagged behind in protecting those rights. And if the same people condemn, criticise, take the courts left and right, it is very unfortunate. Very, very unfortunate," CJI Kant remarked, adding a plea for "better sense" to prevail.

This development serves as a significant reminder of the potential legal repercussions for individuals, especially those in public life or media, who make statements perceived as undermining the authority or dignity of the Indian judiciary. The initiation of contempt of court proceedings against figures like Sanjay Raut and Nikhil Wagle for their judiciary criticism in India demonstrates the Supreme Court's readiness to act when it believes its institutional integrity is challenged. The case, *Supreme Court Bar Association v Nikhil Wagle*, highlights the ongoing tension between freedom of speech and the need to protect judicial independence.

Lawyers advising clients, particularly those in public life or media, must emphasize the strict boundaries of permissible criticism of the judiciary in India. This instance showcases the Supreme Court's willingness to initiate contempt proceedings even against prominent individuals for remarks deemed to undermine judicial authority. The outcome of these contempt of court proceedings India will be closely watched, as it could further define the scope of acceptable public discourse regarding judicial decisions and the conduct of judges, including CJI Surya Kant contempt matters.

Lawyers should advise clients, particularly those in public life or media, on the strict boundaries of permissible criticism of the judiciary in India, as this case demonstrates the Supreme Court's readiness to initiate contempt proceedings even against prominent individuals for remarks deemed to undermine judicial authority.

Source: Original reporting via the provided source material