Supreme Court Orders Nikhil Wagle to Appear Virtually on Nov 17

The Supreme Court of India has directed journalist Nikhil Wagle to attend a contempt hearing virtually, while Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut is required to appear in person. This order comes as part of a contempt petition lodged by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) regarding their remarks against Chief Justice Surya Kant and the judiciary. The hearing is scheduled for November 17 at 2 PM.

The SCBA's petition was initiated after obtaining consent from the Attorney General, who deemed the comments made by Wagle and Raut as scandalous. During the proceedings, senior advocates representing the SCBA highlighted tweets from both individuals, arguing that their statements demonstrated a lack of respect for the Supreme Court. In contrast, Wagle's counsel, Indira Jaising, noted that he had issued an unconditional apology and deleted the contentious post shortly after receiving the contempt notice.

The bench, led by Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi, acknowledged Wagle's apology and the deletion of the post. Justice Kumar emphasized the importance of remorse in this case, allowing Wagle to appear virtually due to his residence in Mumbai. However, the court also indicated that Wagle might be required to attend in person in future hearings if necessary. Raut, on the other hand, did not have legal representation during the hearing, prompting the court to mandate his physical presence.

The SCBA pointed out that Raut had made additional posts suggesting that the Indian Supreme Court could face a situation similar to the Albanian Supreme Court, which was attacked by protesters. Justice Kumar remarked that the matter concerns the integrity of the judiciary as a whole. He also addressed Jaising's comments about the judiciary needing to reciprocate the legal fraternity's sentiments, reiterating that the judiciary has consistently supported the public.

The contempt petition stems from Wagle's social media post, which included derogatory remarks directed at the Chief Justice following a refusal to meet with opposition leaders. The SCBA's petition argues that such statements undermine the authority of the court. The Attorney General supported the petition, stating that the comments were prima facie intended to diminish the Supreme Court's esteem. The case will be revisited on November 17, where further developments are expected.