Sanjay Raut offers apology after Supreme Court asks him to explain conduct in SIR case
Representative image: NoName_13 / Pixabay
The Supreme Court issued notice to the EC on INDIA bloc pleas against SIR on Oct 15, 2026 and asked Sanjay Raut to explain his conduct; he offered to apologise.
What Happened
Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut said on Friday, October 16, 2026, that he would have no hesitation in apologising to the Supreme Court, a day after the court asked him to explain his conduct before it would fully hear his petition against the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. On Thursday, October 15, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Election Commission on petitions filed by Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders against the SIR, and listed the matter for October 27. The bench entertained Mr Raut's petition only provisionally, on the condition that he explains his conduct, after remarks he made about the Chief Justice and other judges. Mr Raut called the court the "last ray of hope" on electoral concerns.
Key Facts
- October 15, 2026: the Supreme Court issued notice to the Election Commission on the INDIA bloc leaders' petitions against the SIR; reply to be filed by the next hearing, on October 27.
- Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The petitions were tagged with the pending batch of cases on the SIR.
- Sanjay Raut, listed as one of the petitioners, must explain his conduct; his plea was entertained only on a provisional basis.
- The court's concern relates to remarks Mr Raut made on October 12 about the Chief Justice and other judges.
- October 16: Mr Raut said he had no hesitation in apologising, and called the Supreme Court the "last ray of hope".
- Separately, the Supreme Court Bar Association has filed a criminal contempt petition against Mr Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle over remarks about the Chief Justice.
- Background: the Chief Justice had earlier declined a request from Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge, the Leaders of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, for a meeting on the SIR, reportedly saying the issues were already before the court.
Why It Matters
The SIR is the Election Commission's exercise to re-verify voter rolls, and opposition leaders have asked the Supreme Court to intervene against it. By issuing notice, the Supreme Court has formally asked the Commission to answer the opposition's case, which keeps the legal challenge alive alongside the revision itself. The October 27 hearing will be the next point at which the court can decide whether to pass any interim directions.
The order on Mr Raut sends a separate message: that litigants, including senior politicians, are expected to show respect to the court whose help they seek. By making his petition conditional, the bench has tied his access to the court to an explanation, and his offer to apologise suggests he intends to stay in the case.
The episode also shows the strain between the opposition and institutions in the SIR dispute. The opposition sought a meeting with the Chief Justice outside the courtroom, which he declined; it then marched to the court and filed petitions; and one petitioner's public remarks have now become an issue in their own right. How the court handles Mr Raut's explanation, and the separate contempt petition, will be watched closely.
| Date | Development |
|---|---|
| October 12 | Mr Raut makes remarks about the CJI and judges |
| October 15 | Supreme Court issues notice to EC; asks Mr Raut to explain conduct |
| October 16 | Mr Raut says he will apologise if needed |
| October 27 | Next hearing on the SIR petitions |
Impact
Short-term: The Election Commission must file its reply before October 27. Mr Raut is expected to place his explanation before the court, and the separate contempt proceedings will run their own course.
Long-term: The outcome of the SIR petitions will shape how voter rolls are revised across states. The handling of Mr Raut's case may also set the tone for how the court treats public criticism of judges by litigants.
Who is affected: Voters whose names are being verified under the SIR, opposition parties that have challenged it, the Election Commission, and political leaders whose public comments about the judiciary are under scrutiny.
Key Takeaway
The Supreme Court has asked the Election Commission to reply to the INDIA bloc's SIR petitions by October 27 and told Sanjay Raut to explain his remarks, after which he offered to apologise.
Questions and Answers
Why did the Supreme Court ask Sanjay Raut to explain his conduct?
The court entertained his petition against the SIR only provisionally on October 15, 2026, after remarks he made on October 12 about the Chief Justice and other judges, and asked him to explain his conduct.
Did Sanjay Raut apologise to the Supreme Court?
On October 16, he said he would have no hesitation in apologising and called the court the "last ray of hope" on electoral concerns.
What did the Supreme Court decide on the SIR petitions?
It issued notice to the Election Commission on the petitions by Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders, asked for a reply, tagged the cases with the pending batch on the SIR and listed them for October 27.
What is the contempt case against Sanjay Raut?
The Supreme Court Bar Association has filed a criminal contempt petition against Mr Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle over their remarks about the Chief Justice. That case is separate from the SIR hearing.
Disclaimer: Prepared by the Peepals newsroom from publicly available sources with AI assistance. Information is accurate to the best of our knowledge at the time of publication and may change. Images may be representative. Not professional advice. Report an error via our contact page.
Sourced and fact-checked by the Peepals Global Editorial Team
Periyar Arivulagam: CM Vijay opens Rs 300-crore library, science centre in Coimbatore
Delhi-Patna Vande Bharat festival special starts Oct 16 for Diwali, Chhath rush
Reported, fact-checked and published by the Peepals Global Editorial Team.
