|
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed journalist Nikhil Wagle to appear virtually and Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut to appear physically on November 17 in a criminal contempt case over their remarks against Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and the judiciary.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi scheduled the matter for hearing at 2 pm after noting Wagles unconditional apology and the deletion of his social media post. Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for Wagle, said he had expressed sincere remorse and had no intention of justifying his remarks. She also highlighted his five-decade-long career and sought permission for virtual appearance as he resides in Mumbai. The SCBA, however, pointed out that Wagle had deleted the post five days after it was published. The bench permitted him to appear virtually for now, leaving open the possibility of directing his physical presence. No counsel appeared for Raut during the hearing. The SCBA also drew the apex courts attention to another social media post attributed to Raut referring to the burning down of Albanias Supreme Court by protesters. Observing that the matter concerned the entire judicial institution, Justice Kumar said the judiciary had stood up for others. The contempt petition was filed by the SCBA after obtaining the Attorney Generals written consent, who considered the alleged remarks scandalous. The top court directed the Registry to place Rauts reply affidavit on record and ordered both to appear in the manner specified on the next date of hearing. On October 16, the apex court had issued notices to Wagle and Raut in the criminal contempt petition filed by the SCBA over their remarks concerning the CJI. It had asked them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them, while exempting them from personal appearance for now. The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on October 15 filed a criminal contempt petition against Wagle and Raut over their remarks. Attorney General R Venkataramani has since granted consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the two under the Contempt of Courts Act. The controversy stems from statements made after CJI Surya Kant declined a request by a delegation of Opposition parties to meet him last week, asking them instead to approach the Supreme Court by filing a petition. (ANI)
|
