Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Orders Physical Appearance for MP Sanjay Raut and Virtual Appearance for Journalist Nikhil Wagle in Contempt Proceedings
By Drooid · · How we work
In this breakdown
01
Core Event
On October 28, 2026, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi) directed Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut to appear in person on November 17 and journalist Nikhil Wagle to appear virtually in a criminal contempt case. The proceedings arise from a petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) over social-media remarks targeting Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
02
Background & Context
The SCBA lodged a contempt petition on October 15, 2026, invoking Article 129 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Attorney General R. Venkataramani consented the same day, and show-cause notices were issued on October 16 to Raut and Wagle. The petition referenced a June 19, 2026 Delhi High Court order that clarified photographs of a badminton event were from Delhi’s Thyagaraj Stadium, not London.
Visual evidence
Images from the story
03
Timeline
Swipe across the table to see all columns.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Oct 15, 2026 | SCBA files contempt petition; AG consents. |
| Oct 11, 2026 | CJI Kant declines meeting with opposition leaders. |
| Oct 16, 2026 | Supreme Court issues show-cause notices. |
| Jun 19, 2026 | Delhi High Court order on mis-captioned badminton photos. |
| Oct 28, 2026 | Court exempts personal appearance pending explanations; later orders physical appearance for Raut and virtual for Wagle. |
| Nov 17, 2026 | Scheduled hearing; Raut in person, Wagle virtually. |
04
Data & Statistics
- November 17: hearing scheduled for 2 pm.
- October 27, 2026: registry report showed no vakalatnama on record for Raut.
05
Official Statements & Responses
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, representing Wagle, submitted an unconditional apology and noted Wagle’s long journalistic career, stating he “deeply regretted” the post and had deleted it. The court directed Wagle’s virtual appearance but left open the possibility of a physical appearance if required.
06
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Registry records dated October 27, 2026 showed no vakalatnama for Raut, contradicting claims that Advocate Vishnu Sharma had entered an appearance on his behalf. The bench had initially exempted both respondents from personal appearance on October 28, then reversed that decision for Raut after noting the missing affidavit.
07
Verbatim Quotes
- “I will remain present in the court,” — Mr. Raut
- “Having regard to the magnitude of the issues involved in the instant case, we are of the considered view that the first respondent (Wagle) shall appear virtually on the next date of hearing,” — The court
- “I tender my sincere, unconditional and unqualified apology to this Hon’ble Court and to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for the post made by me on November 11 on my X handle.” — Indira Jaising
These statements capture the key positions of the bench, legal representatives, and respondents.