New Delhi [India], April 20: Congress leader and MP Imran Masood strongly condemned BJP MP Nishikant Dubey on Sunday for making inflammatory remarks against the Supreme Court, asserting that such comments amount to a threat to the judiciary and undermine democratic institutions.
“Nothing can be more worrisome than threatening the Supreme Court,” said Masood while speaking to ANI. “The BJP has a long-standing habit of shrugging off such statements. We want an India of Babasaheb Ambedkar’s dream.”
Nishikant Dubey’s Controversial Remarks
Dubey triggered a storm by accusing the Supreme Court of overstepping its limits and “inciting religious wars.” He even went so far as to question the relevance of Parliament, saying:
“If one has to go to the Supreme Court for everything, then Parliament and State Assembly should be shut.”
Among other points of criticism, Dubey:
- Alleged that the Supreme Court selectively applies the law — “Show me the face, I will show you the law.”
- Cited Article 377, claiming the court’s decriminalization of homosexuality ignored religious and traditional values.
- Criticized the judiciary’s role in religious disputes like Ram Mandir, Krishna Janmabhoomi, and Gyanvapi, arguing the court demands paperwork for matters steeped in faith and history.
- Claimed the Supreme Court seeks to direct constitutional authorities like the President and Governors, which he views as constitutional overreach.
- Accused the court of leading the country toward “anarchy.”
BJP Distances Itself from Dubey’s Statements
In the wake of mounting backlash, the BJP officially distanced itself from Dubey’s remarks, clarifying that his views do not reflect the party’s position. The party emphasized respect for constitutional institutions, including the judiciary.
This development adds fuel to ongoing debates over judicial activism, the separation of powers, and the boundaries of interpretation versus legislation in India’s democracy.
Context: Judiciary vs. Legislature Tensions
Dubey’s comments come amid heightened tensions between the legislature and judiciary, with ongoing debates about the judiciary’s role in interpreting or reshaping laws versus the exclusive law-making authority of Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, retains the power of judicial review and constitutional interpretation, often leading to friction when rulings challenge legislative or executive decisions.
The episode highlights a sensitive intersection of law, religion, and governance, and has triggered widespread concern across political and legal communities.