New Delhi: The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has filed a contempt petition against journalist Nikhil Wagle and Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut over their alleged remarks against Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The petition seeks legal action over comments that the association says could damage the authority and dignity of the Supreme Court.
The move came after the SCBA received written consent from the Attorney General for India to initiate contempt proceedings. The matter concerns public comments about the Chief Justice and allegations involving judges of the Supreme Court.
CJI Surya Kant Remarks Row: SCBA Seeks Contempt Action Against Nikhil Wagle And Sanjay Raut
The Supreme Court Bar Association has approached the court under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It has sought the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against journalist Nikhil Wagle and MP Sanjay Raut.
Read also: How CJI Surya Kant’s New Proposal Could Transform Arbitration In India
According to the petition, the alleged comments were made deliberately and could lower public respect for the Supreme Court. The association has argued that such statements may weaken the authority of the country’s highest court. The petition was filed after the Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, granted the required consent to begin contempt proceedings.
Why Did The SCBA File The Petition
The controversy relates to public remarks made about Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and other Supreme Court judges. According to the SCBA’s petition, Wagle published a social media post after the CJI declined to meet a delegation of Opposition parties over the continuing protests in Delhi.
The post reportedly included the words, “**** you CJI”. The association has argued that the language was intended to insult the Chief Justice and undermine the dignity of the Supreme Court. The SCBA has also claimed that the post reached a wide audience and could damage public confidence in the judiciary.
CJI Surya Kant Remarks Row: SCBA’s Allegations Against Sanjay Raut
The petition also refers to remarks made by Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut. According to the SCBA, Raut allegedly made false statements about judges attending political events and dinner programmes hosted by ruling-party leaders and the Prime Minister.
The association also referred to claims involving photographs of judges playing badminton with political figures in London.
The SCBA has alleged that these remarks unfairly questioned the conduct of the Chief Justice and other judges. It has argued that such statements could harm public trust in the independence of the judiciary. These are allegations presented by the association in its petition. They should not be treated as findings of guilt by a court.
Attorney General Grants Consent For Contempt Proceedings
Attorney General R. Venkataramani granted consent for the SCBA to initiate criminal contempt proceedings.
Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, consent from the Attorney General or Solicitor General is required for a private person to initiate criminal contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court through this route.
The consent allows the association to move forward with its request. However, it does not mean that the people named in the petition have been found guilty of contempt. The court will have to consider the matter and decide what action, if any, is legally justified.
Delhi High Court’s Earlier Findings On The London Badminton Claims
The SCBA also referred to an earlier finding by the Delhi High Court concerning allegations about judges playing badminton in London.
According to the report, the Attorney General observed that the claims about judges playing badminton in London had been found to be false by the Delhi High Court.
The SCBA has relied on this background while arguing that the remarks against the Chief Justice and other judges were serious and damaging. The association maintains that public statements about judges must not cross legal limits or undermine confidence in the judicial system.
CJI Surya Kant Remarks Row: Nikhil Wagle Issues An Apology
In a related development, journalist Nikhil Wagle reportedly issued an unconditional apology for his comment. Wagle said that the remark was an emotional outburst and stated that he had deleted the social media post.
His apology came amid the controversy over the language used against the Chief Justice. However, the legal implications of the apology, if considered by the court, will depend on the circumstances and the court’s assessment. The filing of the petition does not by itself establish whether the apology will be sufficient to resolve the matter.
What Is Criminal Contempt Of Court
Criminal contempt is a legal concept under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It includes certain acts or publications that scandalise or tend to scandalise a court, prejudice judicial proceedings, or interfere with the administration of justice.
The law aims to protect the proper functioning of the judicial system. However, criticism of judicial decisions is not automatically criminal contempt. Whether a particular statement crosses the legal limit depends on its content, context and the applicable law.
Read also: CJI Surya Kant Reveals The Biggest Challenge Of Bringing AI Into Courts
FAQs
Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani granted consent for the SCBA to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Nikhil Wagle and Sanjay Raut.
The SCBA filed the petition over their alleged remarks against CJI Surya Kant and other Supreme Court judges. It argues that the comments could undermine the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court.
The filing of the petition does not mean that either individual has been found guilty. The allegations must be considered through the legal process before any conclusion can be reached.
