The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut to physically appear before it on November 17 in a criminal contempt case over his public statements targeting Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and the higher judiciary [SCBA v. Nikhil Wagle & Anr.].

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi also directed journalist Nikhil Wagle to remain present virtually on the next date of hearing, after taking on record his unconditional apology.

"Having regard to the magnitude of the issue involved we are of the view that R1 [Wagle] shall appear virtually on the next date of hearing... We direct R2 [Raut] to be present physically before this court on the next date of hearing," the Bench ordered.

The directions were issued in a contempt of court petition initiated by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) following consent granted by Attorney General for India R Venkataramani under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The matter had previously come up on October 16 before a Bench comprising CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi when it chose to issue show-cause notices to Wagle and Raut while remarking that attacks on the institution were deeply unfortunate, especially by those who turn to courts for relief.

"When personal liberty or any rights are jeopardised, each one of them has, in the past also, come to the Court seeking rescue. Probably the courts have never lagged behind in protecting those rights. And if the same people condemn, criticise, take the courts left and right, it is very unfortunate. Very, very unfortunate... May better sense prevail. We can only pray," CJI Kant had observed while exempting their personal appearance at the time.

The controversy arose after CJI Kant declined an in-person meeting requested by an opposition delegation led by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi in connection with the functioning of the Election Commission of India.

Following the decision, Wagle posted an abusive remark on X targeting the CJI, which was subsequently deleted. Raut, meanwhile, alleged in press interactions that Supreme Court and High Court judges were attending political programmes organised by the ruling party and claimed that judges had played badminton with political leaders in London.

During today's hearing, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for Wagle, submitted that her client had filed a detailed reply affidavit tendering an unconditional apology and sought discharge of the show-cause notice.

"He has not only taken down the post but has tendered an unconditional apology in the way of an affidavit... At the earliest possible opportunity he has tendered an unconditional apology. He doesn’t justify anything he’s done," Jaising submitted, highlighting his five-decade career in journalism and absence of political affiliation.

Representing the SCBA, Senior Advocates Pradeep Rai and Rahul Kaushik pointed out that abusive language was directed at the highest judicial office and that the post was not deleted until the notice was served.

When the Bench remarked that Wagle should remain present, Jaising submitted that his appearance had earlier been exempted and also offered that he could join virtually. The Court agreed to permit Wagle's virtual appearance for the time being.

The Bench was then taken through the statements made by Raut. The SCBA pointed out that the Delhi High Court had earlier injuncted the circulation of false reports regarding judges playing badminton in London, yet Raut made similar remarks after the order. Rai also submitted that Raut had posted a tweet referring to the burning of Albania's Supreme Court, suggesting a similar situation could arise in India.

The Court noted that while an advocate-on-record had reportedly filed a vakalatnama on Raut's behalf, no appearance had officially been entered in the registry nor was any reply affidavit placed on record.

Emphasizing that the matter "pertains to the entire institution of judiciary," the Bench sought Jaising’s assistance in the matter.

"I am always there to assist because we love the institution. But the institution must also love us. There are situations where the legal profession does feel very frustrated," Jaising remarked.

The matter will be heard next on November 17 at 2 PM.

[Read Live Coverage]