India's Supreme Court directed Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut to appear physically on November 17 in a criminal contempt case over remarks against Chief Justice Surya Kant, while journalist Nikhil Wagle was told to join virtually after tendering an unconditional apology.
India's Supreme Court on Wednesday directed Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut to appear physically before it on November 17 in a criminal contempt case over his public statements about Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and the higher judiciary.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi also directed journalist Nikhil Wagle to remain present virtually on the next date, after taking on record his unconditional apology. The case was brought by the Supreme Court Bar Association after consent from Attorney General R Venkataramani under the Contempt of Courts Act. The matter had previously come up on October 16, when a bench led by Chief Justice Kant issued show-cause notices to both men.
The controversy followed the Chief Justice's decision to decline an in-person meeting requested by an opposition delegation about the functioning of the Election Commission. Wagle then posted an abusive remark about the Chief Justice on social media, which he later deleted. Raut alleged in press interactions that judges were attending political programmes of the ruling party and claimed judges had played badminton with political leaders in London, a claim the Bar Association noted had previously been injuncted by the Delhi High Court as false reporting.
The directions and the apology are reported consistently by Bar and Bench, IANS and LiveLaw, which all record the November 17 date at 2 p.m., Raut's physical appearance and Wagle's virtual appearance. The reports also agree that Wagle's lawyer, Indira Jaising, told the court her client had filed a detailed affidavit tendering an unconditional apology and seeking discharge of the notice, and that the court was told Raut's reply affidavit had been filed but was not yet on record, with the registry directed to place it on file.
The case turns on where criticism of judges ends and contempt begins, and the court's split directions reflect that distinction: an apology and a deleted post earned Wagle a virtual appearance, while Raut, whose remarks continued and whose affidavit was not on record, was ordered to come in person. Senior advocate Indira Jaising told the court the legal profession loved the institution but felt frustrated at times, and the bench said it would work with the profession towards institutional improvement.
The next hearing, on November 17 at 2 p.m., will show whether the apology and the affidavits are enough to close the matter, or whether the court takes it further against either man.