SC show-cause to Raut and Wagle

This note is NP NOW. The notices are verified. The next date is developing. The reports were rechecked at about 5:45 pm IST on 16 October 2026, the package's fact time is 5:50 pm IST, and the post went up at 6:12 pm IST. The Hindu, India Today and BusinessLine, with PTI, are among the reports of the notices.

On 16 October a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued show-cause notices in a criminal contempt matter. The notices went to Sanjay Raut, a Shiv Sena (UBT) MP, and to the journalist Nikhil Wagle. The petition is the Supreme Court Bar Association's. The matter is their public remarks concerning the Chief Justice and the judiciary. This note does not reprint those remarks. It records that the court has asked about them.

The Bar Association wanted personal appearance. The bench exempted it. The caption records the bench's words as: "We are giving a show-cause notice as of now... granting an exemption from personal appearance."

A show-cause notice, in the caption's plain words, means the court will hear their explanation and then decide what follows. It is not a finding of guilt. The court has not decided the case. The stamp says the same. Notices are verified. A conclusion is not.

The step before the hearing was consent. Attorney General R. Venkataramani gave consent on 15 October under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for the Bar Association's petition. Bar & Bench and the other reports of that consent are in the source list, with LiveLaw and The Times of India on the petition itself.

What Raut said afterwards is a media statement, not an order. Lokmat, carrying ANI, reports that on 16 October he told reporters, in words translated from Hindi: "If there is such a feeling about me, I regret it and I apologise to them… We and the country want justice." ABP Live also reports that he sought to apologise. The caption says Nikhil Wagle had already deleted a post and given an apology. That deletion and that apology are reported. They are not a court finding.

The caption puts the public interest on the line between speech and the dignity of the court. That is the caption's frame. It is not a ruling on where the line falls. The next date of hearing was awaited when the post went up. This note does not supply a date.

The cover is a Wikimedia Commons photograph of the Supreme Court of India by Subhashish Panigrahi, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. The other cards are graphics made by Neutral Politics. The credit for those is "NP graphic".

What is verified is the bench, the notices, the exemption, and the Attorney General's consent. What is alleged is the character of the remarks, which is why the notices exist. What is developing is the next date. What is not decided is guilt.