New Delhi [India]: Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey has sparked controversy by accusing the Supreme Court of overstepping its jurisdiction and “inciting religious wars.” He went as far as to suggest that if the apex court is to make laws, the Parliament should be shut down.
“The top court has only one aim ‘Show me the face, will show you the law’. The Supreme Court is going beyond its limits. If one has to go to the Supreme Court for everything, then Parliament and State Assembly should be shut,” Dubey told ANI.
Dubey criticized past rulings of the court, citing the decriminalization of homosexuality and invoking Article 377. He referred to international and religious views, including those from the Trump administration, claiming that traditional beliefs oppose homosexuality.
“There was an Article 377 in which homosexuality is a big crime. The Trump administration has said that there are only two sexes in this world, either male or female…Whether it is Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Jain or Sikh, all believe that homosexuality is a crime. One fine morning, the Supreme Court said that we abolish this case…”
He emphasized the distinct roles of Parliament and the judiciary as outlined in the Constitution.
“Article 141 says that the laws we make, the judgments we give, are applicable from the lower court to the Supreme Court. Article 368 says that Parliament has the right to make all laws and the Supreme Court has the right to interpret the law. The top court is asking the President and Governor to tell what they have to go regarding the Bills. When Ram Mandir or Krishna Janamboomi or Gyanvapi comes, you (SC) says ‘Show us the paper’. Mughals ke aane ke baad jo Masjid banne hai unke liye keh raho ho paper kaha se dikhao.”
He also accused the judiciary of seeking to push the country towards “anarchy.”
“How can you give direction to the appointing authority? The President appoints the Chief Justice of India. The Parliament makes the law of this country. You will dictate that Parliament?… How did you make a new law? In which law is it written that the President has to take a decision within three months? This means that you want to take this country towards anarchy. When the Parliament sits, there will be a detailed discussion on this.”
Earlier, Dubey reiterated his criticism via a post on X (formerly Twitter), stating in Hindi: “If the Supreme Court makes the law, then the Parliament House should be closed down.”
His remarks come during ongoing Supreme Court hearings on petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The Centre, during the hearing on April 17, assured the Court that it would not denotify any “Waqf-by-user” provisions nor include non-Muslims on the Waqf Board. This assurance followed the Court’s indication that it may consider staying certain parts of the legislation.
Dubey’s comments drew sharp criticism from opposition leaders.
Congress MP Manickam Tagore labeled Dubey’s remarks “defamatory” and an attack on India’s judicial institutions.
“This is a defamatory statement against the Supreme Court. Nishikant Dubey is a person who continuously demolishes all other institutions. Now, he has attacked the Supreme Court. I hope that the Supreme Court judges will take this into notice as he is not speaking in Parliament but outside it. His attack on the Supreme Court is not acceptable.”
Another Congress leader, Imran Masood, described the statement as “unfortunate.”
“The kinds of statements that are coming against the Supreme Court are very unfortunate…This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has given a decision against the full majority government…This frustration is incomprehensible.”
Meanwhile, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar also weighed in on the judiciary’s powers, criticizing the recent Supreme Court directive setting a timeline for the President to act on pending bills.
Speaking at the Valedictory Function of the Rajya Sabha Internship Programme on April 17, Dhankhar called for an amendment to Article 145(3), which defines the composition of benches deciding constitutional matters.
“We cannot have a situation where you direct the President of India, and on what basis? The only right you have under the Constitution is to interpret the Constitution under Article 145(3)… Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against Democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24 x 7.”
The ongoing debate reflects deeper tensions over the balance of power between the legislature, executive, and judiciary in India’s constitutional framework.