The bench observed that public trust in the judiciary cannot be disturbed by such careless remarks.
NEW DELHI: Today, 8th May: The Supreme Court of India has strongly criticised Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament (MP) Nishikant Dubey for making offensive and untrue comments about the top court and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna.
A bench led by CJI Khanna said Dubey’s statements were “highly irresponsible” and showed a desire to seek attention by making baseless allegations against the judiciary.
Even though the comments were serious, the Supreme Court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings against Dubey. The bench observed that public trust in the judiciary cannot be disturbed by such careless remarks.
The Court stated, “such absurd statements” cannot shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system.
The Court made these observations while hearing a plea that requested it to take suo motu (on its own) contempt action against Nishikant Dubey. The petition alleged that the BJP MP made derogatory and scandalising remarks against the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice.
The petition also asked the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to issue an advisory to all state chief secretaries to control hate and provocative speeches by political leaders, especially in connection with the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
The controversy started when Nishikant Dubey, during an interview with news agency ANI, blamed CJI Khanna for unrest in the country. He reportedly said that the Chief Justice was responsible for “all civil wars in the country.” These remarks came after the CJI-led bench hinted at a possible stay on the recently passed Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
ALSO READ: BJP MP Nishikant Dubey: “CJI Khanna Responsible for All Civil Wars in the Country”
Reacting to this, the Supreme Court said Dubey’s comments show a lack of understanding of the important role that constitutional courts play in the country. The top court said in its order, as cited by ANI, that such remarks reflect “ignorance” about the duties and responsibilities given to courts under the Constitution.
Strongly defending the judiciary, the Court observed: “Courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements.”
The bench repeated this statement later in the order as well: “Courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements.”
While rejecting the plea for contempt action, the Supreme Court also gave a stern warning regarding hate speech.
It said: “While we are not entertaining the present petition,” the Court made it clear that “any attempt to spread communal hatred or indulge in hate speech must be dealt with an iron hand.”
Earlier, the two-judge Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih gave this direction during the court hearing. The lawyer who appeared wanted to move a contempt petition, but the judges said that the correct process must be followed.
ALSO READ: MPs’ Remarks On SC| “BJP Completely Rejects These Statements”: Union Minister JP Nadda
Justice Gavai clearly said:
“Make a case before AG. He will give permission.”
As per the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, if a private person wants to file a contempt of court case in the Supreme Court, they must first get written approval from either the Attorney General (AG) or the Solicitor General (SG).
BACKGROUND
On April 19, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey had made sharp remarks against the judiciary, saying:
“Parliament and state assemblies should be shut if the apex court has to make laws.”
These comments came after the Union Government assured the Supreme Court that it would not implement some controversial parts of the Waqf (Amendment) Act until the next hearing. The court had earlier questioned these provisions.
Following this, advocate Anas Tanveer, representing a party in the Waqf Act case, wrote to Attorney General R Venkataramani and asked for consent to initiate contempt proceedings. He described Dubey’s remarks as:
“Grossly scandalous” and “aimed at lowering the dignity” of the Supreme Court.
Later on April 19, the BJP leadership distanced itself from the controversial comments. Party president JP Nadda made it clear that
“The BJP has nothing to do with the comments of MPs Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma on the judiciary and the Chief Justice. These are personal remarks, and the BJP neither agrees with nor supports them in any manner. We unequivocally reject them,”
Nadda posted.
Earlier in the day, Dubey, a fourth-term MP known for his bold rhetoric in the Lok Sabha, launched a scathing attack on the judiciary. He questioned the role of the Supreme Court in lawmaking, saying,
“If the Supreme Court is going to make the laws, then what’s the point of Parliament and state assemblies? They should just be shut down.”
“The comments were his (Dubey’s) personal views.”
He also reassured the public of the BJP’s faith in the judiciary:
“The ruling party’s respect for the judiciary is an inseparable part of democracy.”
Nadda said he had also instructed party leaders:
“Not to make such comments.”
Case Name : Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India
Read Judgement
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
