A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi directed journalist Nikhil Wagle, the other respondent in the petition, to attend the same hearing through video conferencing. The proceedings are scheduled for 2 pm.
The directions came on Wednesday as the court examined a petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), which alleges that statements made by the two men undermined the authority of the judiciary. Neither respondent has been found guilty of contempt. The court’s order concerns their attendance and the handling of their responses, rather than a determination of the allegations contained in the petition.
The bench said the matter concerned the judiciary as an institution and required further consideration. It declined at this stage to discharge the notice issued to Wagle, notwithstanding an unconditional apology submitted on his behalf.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing Wagle, informed the court that the journalist had withdrawn the social media post at issue and expressed remorse. She sought permission for him to participate remotely, pointing to his location in Mumbai and the earlier exemption from personal attendance.
The judges accepted the request for virtual attendance but required Wagle to be present during the next hearing. His affidavit containing the apology was brought to the bench’s attention, and Jaising requested that the show-cause notice against him be discharged. The court did not accept that request and asked counsel for further assistance.
Raut, meanwhile, had no lawyer appearing on his behalf when the matter was called. The bench was informed that advocate Vishnu Sharma had filed a vakalatnama, an authorisation to represent him, and that a reply affidavit had also reportedly been submitted.
The court noted, however, that the registry’s records did not reflect a formal appearance and that the purported reply was not available before the judges. It directed the registry to place any filed affidavit on record and ordered Raut to attend personally on November 17.
Speaking after the hearing, Raut said he would comply with the direction. He also indicated that he did not have full details of what had transpired because his lawyers were not present during the proceedings.
The SCBA initiated the case after obtaining written consent from Attorney General R Venkataramani under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. That consent is a procedural requirement for a private party seeking criminal contempt action before the Supreme Court.
Venkataramani granted consent on October 15, taking the preliminary view that the statements attributed to Raut and Wagle were capable of lowering public esteem for the Supreme Court and its Chief Justice. The allegations remain subject to judicial examination. Consent from the Attorney General permits the association to pursue the petition; it does not establish the truth of its accusations or decide the outcome.
The controversy followed the Chief Justice’s refusal to grant a meeting to a delegation of opposition leaders. The SCBA alleges that Wagle responded with an abusive social media message and that Raut made statements questioning the conduct and political associations of judges.
During Wednesday’s hearing, senior advocates Pradeep Rai and Rahul Kaushik, appearing for the association, drew attention to the disputed statements. They argued that the language used against the Chief Justice went beyond permissible criticism and warranted the court’s intervention.
The association also referred to allegations concerning judges purportedly playing badminton with political figures in London. Its representatives maintained that similar claims had circulated despite an earlier Delhi High Court order restraining false material on the subject.
On October 16, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued show-cause notices to both respondents. It exempted them from appearing personally at the following hearing while allowing them an opportunity to explain their statements.
The notices did not determine whether either man had committed contempt. The pending petition requires the court to assess the statements, their context and the explanations offered before deciding whether further action is justified.
Jaising also told Wednesday’s bench that lawyers sometimes experienced frustration with the institution, while affirming her willingness to assist the court. The judges requested her assistance as they considered the allegations and Wagle’s apology.
