The Supreme Court on Thursday described the remarks made by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey as “highly irresponsible” and indicative of a desire to attract attention by maligning India’s top court and its judges. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, said Dubey’s comments reflect “ignorance” about the role of constitutional courts and the duties assigned to them under the Constitution.
“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,” the court observed.
While rejecting a plea that sought to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against Dubey, the bench asserted that the judiciary is not so “fragile as flowers” that it would wither due to “ludicrous statements.” It stressed that such remarks cannot erode public confidence in the judiciary.
“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.”
Dubey had controversially stated that the Supreme Court was “taking the country towards anarchy” and claimed that “Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna is responsible for the civil wars taking place in the country.” His remarks came after the court began hearing petitions against the Waqf (Amendment) Act.
The petition also sought directions to register FIRs against hate speeches made by political leaders regarding the Waqf Act. During the hearing, advocate Vishal Tiwari urged the court to take action against such hate-filled rhetoric.
The court responded firmly:
“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.”
However, the bench noted that not every contemptuous statement warrants punishment:
“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.”
The order also underlined the structure of a democratic state and the Constitution’s supremacy:
“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.”
Dubey made his statements after the court directed timelines for the President and Governors to give assent to Bills—a move that has also drawn criticism from Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who accused the judiciary of acting as a “super Parliament.”
Dhankhar further remarked that the judiciary cannot fire a “nuclear missile” at democratic forces, echoing concerns from political quarters about judicial overreach.
As per the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a private individual may only file a contempt petition after securing the consent of the Attorney General or Solicitor General. Some lawyers had written to Attorney General R Venkataramani seeking such consent for initiating proceedings against Dubey.
Despite the Supreme Court’s refusal to pursue contempt charges, its remarks strongly reaffirmed the court’s authority and dignity while stressing the foundational role of constitutional values in public discourse.