India's Supreme Court on Friday directed Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha member Sanjay Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle to respond to notices setting out why criminal contempt proceedings ought not to be opened in connection with statements each made about Chief Justice Surya Kant and the broader judiciary.

The direction came from a two-member panel comprising CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who were presiding over a petition brought by the Supreme Court Bar Association — a body that had initiated contempt proceedings following receipt of the attorney general's consent.

The panel set aside the requirement for both respondents to appear in person at this stage. A court observation noted that those whose personal liberty or other rights face a threat have historically turned to judicial proceedings for relief, and that the judiciary's record on upholding those rights has not historically shown a pattern of falling short. Those who resort to court proceedings while simultaneously voicing condemnation and complaints are, in the view expressed from the bench, acting in a manner that warrants regret.

CJI Kant described the matter as deeply regrettable, voicing a hope that more measured thinking would prevail. He described intercession through prayer as the one avenue remaining open to them.

Remarks attributed to Wagle and Raut sit at the origin of the matter — remarks that followed the Chief Justice of India's decision not to meet an Opposition group led by Rahul Gandhi, a group that had approached the court's top office to raise questions about the functioning of the Election Commission of India.

Following the ruling's public announcement, Wagle shared a comment on X that targeted the Chief Justice of India and was deemed offensive in nature. He deleted the post not long after, and paired the removal with an unqualified apology.

Raut took issue with the delegation being turned away, pointing to instances where judges had attended BJP-organised events and maintained social ties with figures from the ruling party. He asserted that roughly 80 judges from the Supreme Court and various high courts had been observed on badminton courts alongside political figures in London.

A formal request for consent to launch criminal contempt proceedings under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was placed before Attorney General R. Venkataramani by the SCBA. On 15 October, the Attorney General gave consent after finding that the statements were, on their face, of a nature likely to bring the Supreme Court — and the Chief Justice in particular — into disrepute.

Counsel for the SCBA, Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai, told the court that while the association found no satisfaction in pursuing contempt proceedings, the remarks in question had left it with little choice but to do so. Under the notice, both respondents are called upon to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be brought against them.

In a separate development, the Supreme Court on Friday scheduled an October 26 hearing for an interlocutory application brought by a woman journalist who contends that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi physically pushed her at the Supreme Court Registry premises during the Opposition's march on October 12. At the bench presided over by CJI Kant, Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia raised the application, requesting that the court take up the matter and address questions around notice issuance in the linked cases. A hearing date of 26 October was assigned to the application by the Chief Justice of India.