{
  "type": "article",
  "title": "CJI Surya Kant Remarks Row: Attorney General Sanctions Criminal Contempt Against Sanjay Raut and Nikhil Wagle",
  "summary": "Attorney General R. Venkataramani has granted consent under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Sanjay Raut and Nikhil Wagle over derogatory remarks.",
  "content": "Acting on a plea submitted by the Supreme Court Bar Association, Attorney General R. Venkataramani has formally accorded statutory consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament Sanjay Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle. The permission was granted under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Following this authorization from the country's senior-most law officer, the route has been cleared for formal judicial hearings against both individuals before the highest court.\n\nDerogatory Social Media Post and Unconditional Apology\nThe controversy first erupted over a statement published on social media platform X. On October 11, Nikhil Wagle deployed offensive and unparliamentary language aimed directly at the Chief Justice of India. The background to this post involved leaders from the INDIA bloc, who had sought an appointment with the Chief Justice prior to staging a planned protest march to the Supreme Court, a meeting request that was turned down by the CJI.\n\nQuoting a news report covering this refusal, Wagle posted his harsh remarks online. However, once the Supreme Court Bar Association took serious objection and approached the authorities with a contempt plea, Wagle took down the offending post. Subsequently, on October 15, he addressed a written communication to the Attorney General tendering an unconditional apology to both the Chief Justice of India and the apex court. Despite that apology, regulatory scrutiny over the incident has moved forward into formal judicial oversight.\n\nThe London Badminton Claim and High Court Clarification\nThe second pillar of the controversy centers on remarks made to the press on October 12 by Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut. During his interaction, Raut alleged that between 60 and 70 judges, including the Chief Justice of India, had been spotted playing badminton alongside Bharatiya Janata Party leaders in London. The legal fraternity quickly contested the veracity of this allegation.\n\nIn its petition, the Supreme Court Bar Association drew attention to a ruling delivered by the Delhi High Court on June 19, which effectively debunked the claim. The High Court's findings showed that the viral images of judges playing badminton were not captured in London at all, but originated from a sports event held in New Delhi during November 2024. Legal representatives maintained that circulating these outdated pictures under a fabricated narrative was a deliberate attempt to cast doubt upon the institutional independence of the higher judiciary.\n\nAssessment by the Attorney General and Next Judicial Steps\nIn his formal consent letter, Attorney General R. Venkataramani evaluated both statements as direct assaults on judicial dignity. He explicitly recorded that Nikhil Wagle's remarks were not only disparaging but reflected an exceptionally poor standard of discourse. Turning to Sanjay Raut's assertions concerning judges attending political events, the Attorney General characterized them as entirely unsubstantiated, misleading, and devoid of factual backing.\n\nThe Attorney General observed that both actions are prima facie objectionable and clearly intended to lower the authority and public standing of the Supreme Court, particularly targeting the office of the Chief Justice of India. While obtaining the Attorney General's approval does not constitute an automatic determination of guilt, it empowers the Supreme Court to conduct a formal trial to decide appropriate legal consequences for impairing constitutional decorum.\n\nWhat this means for you\nThis development underscores the strict legal boundaries governing public commentary, political rhetoric, and online allegations against the judiciary.\n\n• For Citizens and Commentators: Publishing unverified claims, old images with fake contexts, or abusive language targeting judges can trigger immediate criminal contempt action. Users across digital platforms must exercise greater diligence and fact-checking before sharing accusations against judicial officers.\n• For Political Leaders: Making sweeping allegations regarding judicial neutrality without verifiable evidence carries serious legal exposure. Political figures face stringent accountability if statements made in press conferences are proved to be fabricated.\n• Institutional Integrity: Action against deliberate disinformation strengthens public confidence in constitutional institutions. It deters coordinated misinformation campaigns aimed at eroding the authority of the higher courts.\n• Legal Precedent: The decision shows that tendering an apology or deleting an offensive post does not automatically extinguish liability for contempt. The apex court retains the authority to examine whether substantive harm was caused to institutional decorum.\n\nWhy this happened\nThe proceedings stem from controversial social media commentary and unverified public claims that misrepresented archival photographs to allege judicial impropriety.\n\n• Refusal of CJI Meeting: Leaders of the INDIA bloc sought an appointment with the Chief Justice prior to a protest march, which was denied. Following reports of this refusal, Nikhil Wagle posted objectionable commentary directed at the Chief Justice on platform X.\n• Misrepresentation of Archival Photos: Sanjay Raut publicly alleged that between 60 and 70 judges were playing badminton with political party figures in London. The Supreme Court Bar Association demonstrated through a June 19 Delhi High Court ruling that the viral photographs were actually from a November 2024 domestic event in New Delhi.\n• Statutory Consent Under Contempt Law: Perceiving a deliberate attempt to malign judicial independence, the Bar Association petitioned the Attorney General under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Attorney General found that the statements prima facie undermined the authority and dignity of the highest judicial office.\n\nQuestions & Answers\n\n1. Against whom has the Attorney General sanctioned criminal contempt proceedings?\nAttorney General R. Venkataramani has granted consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle.\n\n2. Under which provision was this consent granted?\nThe consent was issued under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.\n\n3. What is the allegation against Nikhil Wagle?\nNikhil Wagle is accused of using offensive and unparliamentary language targeting the Chief Justice of India in a post published on X on October 11.\n\n4. What claim did Sanjay Raut make regarding the judges?\nOn October 12, Sanjay Raut claimed that between 60 and 70 judges, including the CJI, were seen playing badminton with BJP leaders in London.\n\n5. How was Sanjay Raut's claim refuted?\nA June 19 Delhi High Court order confirmed that the viral pictures were not from London, but from a November 2024 sports event held in New Delhi.\n\n6. Did Nikhil Wagle tender an apology for his post?\nNikhil Wagle deleted the post and sent a letter to the Attorney General on October 15 expressing an unconditional apology to the CJI and the Supreme Court.",
  "url": "https://trendkia.com/en/national/cji-surya-kant-para-vivadita-bayana-sanjay-raut-aura-nikhil-wagle-ke-khilapha-aparadhika-avamanana-kesa-ko-attorney-general-ki-mnj-47953",
  "category": "India",
  "publishedAt": "2026-10-15",
  "tags": [
    "Supreme Court",
    "Sanjay Raut",
    "Nikhil Wagle",
    "Surya Kant",
    "Attorney General",
    "Criminal Contempt",
    "R Venkataramani",
    "SCBA"
  ],
  "language": "en",
  "site": "TrendKia"
}