New Delhi [India]: Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Nishikant Dubey stirred a major controversy on Saturday by accusing the Supreme Court of overstepping its constitutional boundaries and “inciting religious wars” in the country. He questioned the court’s involvement in lawmaking and suggested that if the apex court assumes legislative powers, there is no need for the Parliament to function.
“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.
He cited the decriminalisation of homosexuality and accused the court of ignoring religious sentiments while making landmark decisions.
“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…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.”
Dubey further alleged that the Supreme Court’s recent actions could lead the country towards chaos:
“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 in the day, Dubey took to social media platform X (formerly Twitter), stating in Hindi:
“If the Supreme Court makes the law, then the Parliament House should be closed down.”
His remarks came in the context of the ongoing Supreme Court hearings on petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. During the proceedings on April 17, the Centre assured the court that it would not denotify any ‘Waqf-by-user’ properties or appoint non-Muslim members to the Waqf Board.
The comments from Dubey received sharp criticism from opposition parties, particularly the Congress. Congress MP Manickam Tagore called the BJP MP’s remarks defamatory and unacceptable:
“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.”
Congress MP Imran Masood echoed similar sentiments, calling Dubey’s comments 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 criticized the judiciary’s expanding role, especially the court’s directive that the President must respond to pending bills within a time frame. Speaking at the Valedictory Function of the sixth Rajya Sabha Internship Programme, Dhankhar raised constitutional concerns and proposed reforms:
“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). There, it has to be five judges or more. When Article 145(3) was there, the number of judges in the Supreme Court was eight, 5 out of 8, now 5 out of 30 and odd. But forget about it; the judges who issued a mandamus virtually to the President and presented a scenario that it would be the law of the land have forgotten the power of the Constitution. How can that combination of judges deal with something under Article 145(3) if preserved, it was then for five out of eight.”
“We also need to make amends for that now. Five out of eight would mean interpretation will be by majority. Well, five constitutes more than the majority in eight. But leave that aside. Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against Democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24 x 7.”
The debate continues to intensify as the boundaries between judicial review and legislative supremacy come under the national spotlight.