"Highly irresponsible", says Supreme Court on MP Nishikant Dubey's 'scandalous' remarks

New Delhi [India], May 8 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Thursday said the remarks of BJP MP Nishikant Dubey were "highly irresponsible" and reflect a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on India's apex court and its judges.
MP's remarks "show ignorance" about the role of the constitutional courts and the duties and obligations bestowed on them under the Constitution, a bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said in its order.
Dubey's comments were "highly irresponsible" and reflect a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court, said the apex court.
The apex court while refusing to entertain a plea seeking direction to initiate suo moto contempt case against Dubey, said that courts are not as "fragile as flowers" to wither and wilt under such "ludicrous statements," and public's confidence in the judiciary cannot be shaken by "such absurd comments."

"This apart, the statements show ignorance about the role of the constitutional courts and the duties and obligations bestowed on them under the Constitution. At the same time, we are of the firm opinion that courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. We do not believe that the confidence in and credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such absurd statements, though it can be said without the shadow of doubt that there is a desire and deliberate attempt to do so," it added.
Dubey had reportedly said that "Supreme Court is taking the country towards anarchy" and that "Chief Justice of India, Sanijv Khanna is responsible for the civil wars taking place in the country". He made the remarks against the apex court for hearing pleas against the Waqf (Amendment) Act.
The petition sought direction to register FIRs against hate speeches made by political leaders in the context of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025.
As advocate Vishal Tiwari sought action against hate speeches, the bench made it clear that any attempt to spread communal hatred or indulge in hate speech must be dealt with an "iron hand".
"Hate speech cannot be tolerated as it leads to loss of dignity and self-worth of the targeted group members, contributes to disharmony amongst groups, and erodes tolerance and open-mindedness, which is a must for a multi-cultural society committed to the idea of equality. Any attempt to cause alienation or humiliation of the targeted group is a criminal offence and must be dealt with accordingly," the order added.
It said every contemptuous statement need not result in punishment because "judges are judicious, their valour non-violent and their wisdom springs into action when played upon by a volley of values, the least of which is personal protection".
It further added that "each branch of the state in a democracy, be it the legislature, executive or the judiciary, especially in a constitutional democracy, acts within the framework of the Constitution".
"It is the Constitution that is higher than all of us. It is the Constitution which imposes limits and restrictions on the powers vested in the three organs. The power of judicial review is conferred by the Constitution on the judiciary. Statutes are subject to judicial review to test their constitutionality as well as for judicial interpretation. Therefore, when the constitutional courts exercise their power of judicial review, they act within the framework of the Constitution," the order further stated.
MP Dubey had made the statement following the top court fixing timeline for the President and Governors to give assent to Bills and its intervention in the Waqf (Amendment) Act matter.
Some lawyers had also written letters to Attorney General R Venkataramani, demanding initiation of contempt proceedings against Dubey for his remarks.
As per the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a private individual can file a contempt of court petition in the Supreme Court only after obtaining the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.
The BJP MP had claimed the Supreme Court was taking the country towards anarchy.
On April 19, he said Parliament and Assemblies should be shut if the top court is dictating laws and that Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna is "responsible for civil wars" in the country.
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar had also questioned the judiciary for setting a timeline for the President to decide whether or not to assent to state Bills referred to the President by a Governor.
Dhankar further accused the Supreme Court of acting as a "super Parliament" and said it cannot fire a "nuclear missile" at democratic forces. (ANI)