SC notice to journalist, Sena (UBT) leader for remarks against CJI

1. At a Glance

• On a contempt petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), the Supreme Court issued notice to senior journalist Nikhil Wagle and Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut. The petition concerns their public remarks against Chief Justice of India Surya Kant [1].
• The Attorney-General, R. Venkataramani, consented to the SCBA's request to start contempt proceedings. That consent is the legal gateway when a private party moves the court for criminal contempt [1][2][3].
• The case sits where three things meet: freedom of speech (Art. 19(1)(a)), the contempt power of courts of record, and public trust in the judiciary. This is a recurring GS-II and Ethics theme.
• It is a fresh test of the "scandalising the court" limb of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [2].

2. Why in the News

• 16 October 2026 (Friday): A Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the SCBA contempt petition and issued notice to Wagle and Raut. The court said the case would be heard soon [1].
• Senior advocate Pradeep Rai appeared for the SCBA. He said the Bar "had first thought to ignore it", but "others get instigated by all this and do things which are inappropriate" [1].
• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the disparaging comments were made "deliberately" because the speakers "believe it brings pressure on My Lords" [1].
• The CJI said orally that the respondents had "come in the past to the court, then later they condemn and criticise the court" [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• 1971: Parliament enacted the Contempt of Courts Act (Act No. 70 of 1971). It defines civil and criminal contempt and sets the procedure for both [2].
• 1975: The Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 were framed to govern contempt procedure in the SC [5].
• Section 15 is the procedural route for criminal contempt. The court can act suo motu, or on a motion by the Advocate-General, or by any other person with the written consent of the Advocate-General. For the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General fills the Advocate-General's role [2][3].
• The SC's view of Section 15: The SC has held that Section 15 is procedural only and is not the source of its contempt jurisdiction. That power is inherent in a court of record [3][4].
• 2020: The Attorney-General consented to contempt proceedings against comedian Kunal Kamra. The SC then issued notice to Kamra and cartoonist Rachita Taneja in separate contempt cases [6][7].
• 2020: The SC held that a criminal contempt petition without the required consent is not maintainable [3].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Criminal contempt is a statutory category in the 1971 Act. The SC, however, treats its power to punish as inherent, and Section 15 governs only procedure [2][4].
• The consent requirement acts as a filter against frivolous private contempt petitions. Without it, a petition is not maintainable unless the court acts suo motu [3].
• Tension: Speech that "scandalises" the court can lead to punishment. Critics argue this sits uneasily with Art. 19(1)(a), even though "contempt of court" is a listed ground for reasonable restriction under Art. 19(2).

Ethical / Governance

• The CJI's remark that litigants who sought relief later "condemn, criticise" the court raises the question of institutional dignity versus accountability [1].
• The SG framed the remarks as deliberate pressure on judges [1]. This brings in judicial independence and the integrity of adjudication.
• Counter-view: if the court uses its contempt power in a case about remarks on the CJI, it may look like the court is judging its own cause. Restraint is often urged in such cases.

Political

• One respondent is a sitting Rajya Sabha MP [1]. The case therefore touches legislator–judiciary relations, although parliamentary privilege (Art. 105) covers only speech inside Parliament.
• The SCBA said comments by public figures "instigate" others [1]. This shows how political speech can amplify attacks on the judiciary.

Media / Social

• A senior journalist is a respondent [1]. The case raises press freedom and the chilling-effect debate, which echoes the 2020 Kamra and Taneja cases [6][7].
• Social-media amplification of criticism of the judiciary is a growing concern. Pradeep Rai's "instigation" argument reflects this [1].

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 16 Oct 2026: The SC issued notice to Wagle and Raut on the SCBA petition. The AG had already given consent, and the matter is to be listed soon [1].
• Oct 2026: A Business Standard explainer discussed whether officials can be punished for defying SC orders. This keeps civil contempt in the news too [8].
• CJI Surya Kant heads the Bench hearing a case about remarks against him as CJI [1]. This is a talking point on nemo judex in causa sua, the rule that no one should judge their own cause.

7. Prelims Hooks

• The Contempt of Courts Act was enacted in 1971 as Act No. 70 of 1971 [2].
• Contempt is of two types: civil and criminal [2].
• "Scandalising or lowering the authority of any court" falls under criminal, not civil, contempt [2].
• Section 15 of the 1971 Act lays down how cognisance of criminal contempt is taken [2].
• For the Supreme Court, the consenting law officer is the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General [3].
• A private person needs written consent of the law officer to move criminal contempt [2][3].
• Criminal contempt must be heard by a Bench of not less than two judges [2][3].
• The SC has held that Section 15 is procedural and that its contempt power is inherent [4].
• The SC's contempt procedure is governed by rules framed in 1975 [5].
• In December 2020, the SC issued contempt notices to Kunal Kamra and Rachita Taneja after the AG consented [6][7].
• The current petitioner, the SCBA, is a Bar body. The case was not taken up suo motu [1].
• The current AG is R. Venkataramani and the current SG is Tushar Mehta [1].

8. Who Judges the Case When the Judge Is the Target

• The CJI sits on the Bench hearing remarks made against him
• The remarks were aimed at CJI Surya Kant, and he is one of the two judges hearing the case [1].
• Before any hearing, he said orally that the respondents first come to the court for help and later attack it [1].

• A respondent can fairly say the judge has already formed a view. This is the core of nemo judex in causa sua (no one should judge their own case).

• In an original contempt case, there is almost no appeal

• Here the Supreme Court is the first court and the last court at once.
• A person convicted can only file a review petition. Review is decided in chambers (by the judges in private), usually without hearing the convicted person [11].
• After his 2020 conviction, Prashant Bhushan asked the SC for a right to appeal before a larger, different Bench, so the same judges would not hear the matter again [11].
• So the judges who feel insulted, the judges who convict, and the judges who review can all be the same people.

9. What the Attorney-General's Consent Filter Does Not Stop

• The filter is held by the government's own lawyer
• A private petition for criminal contempt needs written consent from the AG or SG [2][3].
• Both are law officers chosen by the Union government. In this case, one respondent is an opposition MP (Shiv Sena (UBT)) [1].
• The SG did more than allow the case to go ahead. He argued in court that the remarks were made on purpose to pressure judges [1].

• So the safeguard against misuse of contempt is in the hands of an office that may have its own political interest in the result.

• The court can go around the filter anyway

• Section 15 also lets the court act suo motu (on its own, with no petition) [2].
• The SC holds that its contempt power is inherent and does not come from the 1971 Act [4].
• So the consent rule only screens private petitions. It does not limit the court.

10. Why the UK Dropped This Offence and India Kept It

• The UK found it could manage without 'scandalising'
• The Law Commission of India's 274th Report (17 April 2018) noted that the UK had abolished the offence of scandalising the court [9].

• The last such case in the UK was in 1931. The same conduct can still be punished there under other laws [9].

• India's Law Commission said no, for three reasons

• The number of contempt cases was very high: 96,993 civil and 583 criminal contempt cases were pending in the High Courts and the SC [9].
• Removing the offence would leave a gap in the law [9].

• Narrowing the definition could weaken respect for courts [9].

• The weak spot in India's reasoning

• The Commission also said that deleting the offence from the Act would not touch the courts' inherent constitutional power to punish contempt [9].
• If that is true, a change in the law alone cannot limit the 'scandalising' power. Only judicial restraint can.
• The large number of pending cases shows how much contempt is used. It does not show that criticism of judges is a growing danger.

11. The Best Argument for Punishing These Remarks, and Its Limits

• The strongest case for contempt
• The SG says the remarks were deliberate, made in the belief that they 'bring pressure' on judges [1].
• The SCBA says comments by public figures 'instigate' others to act improperly [1].
• If a planned campaign aims to scare judges in pending cases, that is a threat to fair trials, not just criticism. Contempt law exists to stop exactly this.

• In the Bhushan case, the SC said attempts to 'shake the very foundation of constitutional democracy' must be met 'with an iron hand' [10].

• Where that argument is right

• Pressuring a judge to decide a case a certain way is different from criticising a judgment. The first can harm the administration of justice.

• Where it goes too far

• The SG's claim is about the speakers' motive. Contempt should turn on whether the speech actually obstructs justice, not on whether it hurts the court's dignity.
• The 1971 Act lets the court accept truth as a defence when the statement is in the public interest and made in good faith [2]. If remarks are punished without testing their truth, honest critics are treated the same as liars.
• The Bhushan case ended with a fine of Re 1 [10]. When the final penalty is so small, the long trial itself becomes the punishment. That is what scares off other critics (the chilling effect).

12. What Should Happen Next

• The CJI should send the case to a Bench he is not on
• As master of the roster (the judge who decides which Bench hears which case), the CJI can do this.

• It removes the nemo judex objection at no cost to the court's power [1].

• Parliament should create an appeal against original contempt convictions in the SC

• Right now, review in chambers is the only remedy [11].

• Bhushan's 2020 request for an appeal before a larger, different Bench shows the gap is real [11].

• The AG and SG should give written reasons when they consent

• Section 15 needs written consent but no explanation [2][3].

• Published reasons would let the public check whether the filter is used the same way for government critics and supporters alike.

• Courts should test the remarks against Section 13 first

• They should ask whether the remarks are true, made in good faith, or a real obstruction of justice before treating them as 'scandalising' [2].
• This follows the UK's path: punish actual harm under other laws and stop treating the offence of insulting judges as a separate crime [9].

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: 96,993 civil and 583 criminal contempt cases were pending in the High Courts and the SC, as recorded by the Law Commission [9]
• Report/Committee: Law Commission of India, 274th Report, Review of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (17 April 2018). It kept criminal contempt and recommended no amendment [9]
• Law/Case: In Re Prashant Bhushan (2020): conviction over two tweets, fine of Re 1, review as the only remedy [10][11]. Section 13, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: truth as a defence if made in public interest and good faith [2]
• Comparison: The United Kingdom abolished 'scandalising the court'. Its last case was in 1931, and the same conduct is now handled under other laws [9]

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Structure, organisation and functioning of the Judiciary. Fundamental Rights (Art. 19). Parliament and State Legislatures: conduct of members.
• GS-IV: Ethics in public life. Probity, institutional integrity, freedom of expression versus responsibility.
• Essay: Free speech, dissent and institutional legitimacy.
• Possible question stems: 1. "The power to punish for 'scandalising the court' is a colonial relic incompatible with a mature democracy." Critically examine this in light of recent contempt proceedings. 2. Discuss the role of the Attorney-General's consent under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as a safeguard against misuse of contempt jurisdiction. 3. How should the judiciary balance its dignity against the citizen's right to criticise it? Illustrate with recent cases.

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Art. 19(1)(a) and 19(2): Contempt of court is one of the grounds for reasonable restriction on free speech.
• Arts. 129 and 215 (courts of record): These are the constitutional basis of the SC's and HCs' contempt power.
• Prashant Bhushan contempt case (2020): The landmark "scandalising" case, which ended in a ₹1 fine.
• Office of the Attorney-General (Art. 76): The AG's role as gatekeeper of contempt petitions.
• Parliamentary privilege (Art. 105): Limits of an MP's immunity for speech outside the House.
• Judicial accountability and in-house procedure: Alternatives to contempt for handling criticism of judges.
• Law Commission review of the Contempt law (2018): Recommended keeping "criminal contempt".

16. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Criminal contempt (Polity): Remarks against the CJI fall under 'scandalising the court', the criminal contempt limb at the centre of this case.
• Contempt of court (Polity): Explains the Article 129 and 215 power and the two types of contempt that the Supreme Court is using here.
• Freedom of speech and expression (Polity): The core tension: Article 19(2) lets contempt restrict speech, so criticism of judges can be punished.
• Court of record (Polity): The Supreme Court's contempt power is inherent in its status as a court of record, not drawn from the 1971 Act.
• Judicial accountability (Polity): Frames the counter-argument: an independent judiciary must still accept public criticism and answer to the people.
• Independence of the judiciary (Polity): The Solicitor General says the remarks pressure judges, so this links to protecting judges from outside pressure.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Civil vs criminal contempt: Remarks against the CJI fall under criminal contempt (scandalising). Disobeying an order is civil contempt [2].
• Who gives consent: For the SC it is the AG or SG. The Advocate-General is the consenting officer for High Courts, not the SC [3].
• Source of power: The 1971 Act does not confer the SC's contempt power. That power is inherent, and the Act only regulates procedure [4].
• Who filed: This case was filed by the SCBA with AG consent. It is not a suo motu case [1].
• Name and role mix-ups: Tushar Mehta is the SG, not the AG. R. Venkataramani is the AG [1].