Advocate Seeks AG’s Nod For Contempt Case Against Saurav Das Over X Post On CJI Surya Kant

The letter, dated October 5, states that the post was published at 9:50 PM. It quoted a legal news portal's post from earlier that evening, which reported that two petitions were listed before the Supreme Court on 5 October 2026: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1246/2026, and Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 401/2026.

According to the letter, both matters were listed at Serial Nos. 22 and 23 before the Chief Justice’s Court, which comprised Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana.

The letter reproduces the post. Referring to the hearing, Das wrote, “Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, the judges that made sure the illegal SIR process goes through without any trouble in Bengal and Bihar, must quietly sit this one out. Even if they choose to do something, they can continue doing it. No one cares. The Supreme Court has been complicit in ensuring that Gen Z’s voting rights are stolen and state elections too. By ensuring that important petitions are not heard and decided in time, like the Maharashtra government toppling, parties being broken up, Delhi constitutional crisis case, the BJP had the last laugh. It’s a big blot on our judiciary. And so, this Supreme Court Bench may do whatever they want to but it will hold absolutely ZERO CREDIBILITY in people’s eyes. The accountability will be decided by the people of India, the young generation. The Court can do whatever it wants to do tomorrow or whenever.”

The letter also states that “A complete copy of the publication is enclosed.”

Fair and Sharp Criticism of Courts Is Not Contempt, Advocate Acknowledged

The Advocate expressly distinguished the request from criticism of judicial decisions.

“I respectfully recognise that judgments and the functioning of constitutional courts are open to fair, robust and even sharp criticism. The contempt jurisdiction is not intended to shield Judges or judicial decisions from legitimate public scrutiny. My request is therefore not founded merely upon criticism of the Supreme Court, the Election Commission, the SIR process or any judicial decision," the Advocate's letter reads. 

Timing and Reference to an Imminent Proceeding Said to Raise a Section 2(c) Question

The letter describes its concern as “narrower”. It says the post “names two sitting Judges of a Bench which is to hear the concerned proceedings today”, “calls upon them to ‘sit this one out’”, “attributes ‘complicity’ to the Supreme Court in the alleged deprivation of voting rights”, and states, “before the hearing, that the Bench would have ‘ZERO CREDIBILITY’ irrespective of what it may do.”

On that basis, the Advocate wrote that “a question arises whether the publication, viewed as a whole and particularly having regard to its timing and its express reference to an imminent judicial proceeding, crosses the permissible limits of criticism and falls within the ambit of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”

Section 2(c) defines criminal contempt to include a publication that scandalises, or tends to scandalise, or lowers the authority of any court; that prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding; or that interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner.

A Private Person Cannot Move Criminal Contempt Without the Attorney General’s Written Consent

Under Section 15(1)(b), where criminal contempt is not committed in the face of the court, the Supreme Court or a High Court may take action on a motion by a person other than the Attorney General or Solicitor General only with the written consent of either law officer.

The letter states, “As initiation of criminal contempt proceedings by a private person requires prior written consent under Section 15(1)(b) of the Act, the present request is confined to seeking such statutory consent.”

Whether the Section 13 Threshold Is Met Left to the Court

The Advocate in the letter states that they were “conscious of the threshold prescribed by Section 13 of the Act” and did “not seek to prejudge whether the publication constitutes criminal contempt.”

Section 13 of Contempt of Courts Act provides that no sentence for contempt shall be imposed unless the contempt substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere, with the due course of justice.

The letter adds that the material was being placed before the Attorney General “for consideration, the ultimate determination, if proceedings are instituted, being for the Court.”

Furthermore, it states that by asking the Attorney General to “consider the enclosed material and, if satisfied that the requirements of law are met, grant your consent in writing under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiation of appropriate criminal contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court of India against Mr. Saurav Das.”