AG’s Consent Clears Procedural Path for SCBA Contempt Plea Against Nikhil Wagle and Sanjay Raut

The Supreme Court Bar Association alleges that remarks about Chief Justice of India Surya Kant crossed the line from criticism into scandalising the judiciary. The Attorney General’s consent allows the matter to be placed before the Court; it is not a finding of contempt.

(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)

Attorney General R. Venkataramani has granted consent for the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to pursue a criminal contempt petition against journalist Nikhil Wagle and Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut over remarks concerning Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

The SCBA moved the Attorney General on October 15, seeking consent under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Attorney General granted consent the same day. The statutory step enables the Association to bring its criminal contempt motion before the Court; it does not, by itself, determine whether either respondent is guilty of contempt.

The controversy arose after the CJI declined a request by a delegation of opposition parties to meet him personally. He reportedly indicated that the delegation could place its concerns before the Court by filing a petition. The subsequent public remarks by Wagle and Raut are now at the centre of the SCBA’s application.

According to the petition, Wagle responded to a news report about the CJI’s decision by posting an abusive message on X. He has since deleted the post. In a letter addressed to the Attorney General, Wagle tendered an unconditional apology to the CJI and the Supreme Court and requested that the matter not be pursued further.

The SCBA’s petition also refers to comments attributed to Raut in media coverage. Raut was reported as alleging that judges had attended political programmes organised by the BJP in states where it governs, and that chief ministers had hosted dinners for judges. He also referred to photographs said to show judges playing badminton with political figures in London.

The Association maintains that the remarks went beyond fair comment and were capable of lowering the authority of the Supreme Court. In the Attorney General’s view, as set out in the consent letter reported by Bar & Bench, Wagle’s post was abusive, while Raut’s claims about judicial attendance at political events were not supported by facts. The Attorney General also noted that the Delhi High Court had already addressed the badminton photographs before Raut’s remarks were made.

In its June order concerning reports and online posts about judges travelling to London for a badminton event, the Delhi High Court said the circulated photographs were unrelated to the London event and were from a November 2025 tournament at Delhi’s Thyagaraj Stadium. The Court directed the removal of material it found to contain demonstrably incorrect assertions.

The SCBA has asked the Supreme Court to direct X Corp, Meta, Google and IANS to preserve relevant posts, videos and account records. It has also sought an interim restraint on Wagle and Raut from making similar allegations against the CJI or Supreme Court judges while the matter is pending.

The Association has stated that it does not seek to curtail fair and temperate criticism of the judiciary. Its case, as presented in the petition, is that the particular statements in question crossed that boundary and risked undermining public confidence in the Court.

The next stage will be for the Supreme Court to consider the petition and determine what, if any, action should follow. Until then, the allegations remain matters for judicial consideration, and the Attorney General’s consent should not be mistaken for a finding against either respondent.