While several media outlets reported that the court had pulled up Rahul Gandhi over the October 12 march, Congress leader Supriya Shrinate said the written order referred specifically to Sanjay Raut’s petition.
BY PC Bureau
New Delhi, October 16, 2026: Congress has accused sections of the media of behaving like “lapdog vultures” launched a scathing attack on television and digital news outlets for reporting that the Supreme Court had pulled up Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi over the INDIA bloc’s October 12 march to the apex court.
Congress social media cell chief Supriya Shrinate alleged that sections of the media had turned an ambiguous oral observation by the court into a headline suggesting that Gandhi had been reprimanded, even though the written order specifically named Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut in connection with the requirement to explain his conduct.
🚨FAKE NEWS PEDDLERS
इन सबने मिलकर राहुल गांधी के बारे में कल fake news फैलाई
फिर दूध का दूध और पानी का पानी हो गया
सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऑर्डर में साफ़ है – कोर्ट या चीफ जस्टिस ने नेता विपक्ष के लिए ऐसी कोई बात नहीं कही थी
Fake news गैंग माफ़ी माँगो https://t.co/KSionbyOjT
— Supriya Shrinate (@SupriyaShrinate) October 16, 2026
In a sharply worded post on X, Shrinate said media outlets had spent the day claiming that the Supreme Court had rebuked Gandhi over the march. But, she argued, the written order told a different story: the condition concerning an explanation applied to Raut, whose petition had been provisionally entertained.
“The Supreme Court’s written order clearly states that their remark was for Sanjay Raut ji — and he will give its legal response,” the Congress leader wrote.
Shrinate accused journalists of attributing words to the Chief Justice of India that he had not spoken, questioning whether they had sacrificed basic reporting standards to manufacture a political embarrassment for Gandhi. She also raised the question of whether a BJP spokesperson had misled the media before holding a press conference.
Calling the coverage “shallow journalism” and describing its practitioners as “lapdog vultures”, the Conngress leader said the written order was “a resounding slap” on those who had portrayed the proceedings as a direct reprimand to the Leader of the Opposition.
Her central charge was that a court hearing had been converted into a political spectacle, with headlines doing the work of a verdict that the court had not delivered.
कल पूरे दिन मीडिया के चरणचुम्बकों ने खबर चलाई और डिबेट किया कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने नेता विपक्ष राहुल गांधी को उनके मार्च पर “फटकार लगाई”
लेकिन सुप्रीम कोर्ट के लिखित ऑर्डर में साफ़ है कि उनकी टिप्पणी संजय राउत जी के लिए थी – और वो उसका क़ानूनी जवाब देंगे
कोर्ट ने कल भी मौखिक मतलब oral टिप्पणी में किसी का नाम नहीं लिया था – तो मीडिया के गिद्धों ने राहुल गांधी का नाम क्यों लिया?
नेता विपक्ष एक संवैधानिक पद है – इन जाहिल पत्रकारों ने एक बार फिर न सिर्फ़ उसकी मर्यादा भंग की है
बल्कि इस बार इन लोगों ने देश के चीफ जस्टिस के हवाले से भी झूठ बोला – और उनका भी अपमान किया
असल में तो यह contempt का मामला बनता है
क्योंकि चीफ जस्टिस या कोर्ट ने राहुल गांधी के लिए कोई टिप्पणी नहीं की थी
लेकिन अब जब सच सामने आ गया है तो क्या यह चरणचुंबक माफ़ी माँगेंगे?
क्या यह समझायेंगे कि जो बात कोर्ट में नहीं कही गई इन्होंने चीफ जस्टिस और राहुल गांधी के हवाले से क्यों और कैसे चलाई?
इनकी छिछली पत्रकारिता का सोर्स कौन था?
क्या BJP के बिना पायजामे वाले प्रवक्ता ने इन लोगों को बरगलाया और फिर ख़ुद कोर्ट का अनादर करते हुए एक भ्रामक झूठी प्रेस वार्ता की?
जो भी हो, फिर से साफ़ है कि गोदी गिद्ध सिर्फ़ झूठ बोलते हैं – सुप्रीम कोर्ट का लिखित ऑर्डर इन सबके मुँह पर एक करारा तमाचा है
— Supriya Shrinate (@SupriyaShrinate) October 16, 2026
What the Supreme Court actually recorded
On October 15, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard petitions filed by Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders challenging the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, alongside related proceedings concerning the October 12 march towards the Supreme Court premises.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia and other lawyers referred to the march and the commotion surrounding it. The Chief Justice observed that “nobody can browbeat the judiciary” and said the judges were “not sitting in ivory towers” and were aware of statements made outside the courtroom.
The bench also indicated that it would ask “one of the petitioners” to explain his conduct at the next hearing. The oral observations did not identify that petitioner by name.
The written order, however, expressly referred to Raut. It stated: “In W.P. (C) No. 1351/2026, the petition on behalf of Petitioner No. 6 (Sanjay Raut) is entertained on a provisional basis, subject to his explaining his conduct.”
Raut is the sixth petitioner in the joint plea. The order thus explicitly attaches the condition concerning an explanation to his petition.
This is the distinction at the heart of Shrinate’s attack: a general oral observation made during a hearing is not necessarily a personal reprimand, and a headline should not turn an inference into an established judicial finding.
READ: Analysis: Prashant Bhushan’s Call for Regime Change—Why Call It a Conspiracy?
Why Sanjay Raut was asked to explain
The direction concerning Raut follows his public criticism of the Chief Justice after the latter declined a meeting request from Gandhi and other opposition leaders seeking to submit a memorandum on the SIR exercise.
Raut had alleged that around 60–80 Supreme Court and High Court judges, including the CJI, had been seen playing badminton with BJP leaders in London and attending dinners with ministers, while declining to meet the Leader of the Opposition.
The allegations triggered a separate legal controversy. The Attorney General has granted consent for the Supreme Court Bar Association to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle over the remarks.
Raut has since said that the Supreme Court remains the last hope for justice and that he is willing to apologise if the court considers any of his remarks or actions inappropriate.
Comments 1