New Delhi, May 8 (UNI) The Supreme Court has come down heavily on BJP MP Nishikant Dubey for his inflammatory and scandalous remarks directed at Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and the judiciary over the handling of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
In a strongly worded order dated May 5, a bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice P V Sanjay Kumar termed Dubey’s comments a deliberate attempt to undermine the credibility of the judiciary and erode public confidence in the institution.
The Court noted with concern that Dubey’s public statements including accusations that the Chief Justice is responsible for "all civil wars in India" and that the Supreme Court was “inciting religious conflicts” were reckless, defamatory and intended to scandalise the court.
“The statements no doubt tend to scandalise and lower the authority of the Supreme Court of India… and have the tendency to interfere and obstruct the administration of justice,” the bench observed.
Despite the gravity of the allegations, the Court refused to initiate contempt proceedings against Dubey, as sought by petitioner Advocate Vishal Tiwari, who had moved the top court urging action under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Rejecting the contempt plea, the bench remarked, “Courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements.”
However, it clarified that Dubey’s remarks do not fall within the protective exceptions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
“There is no civil war in India. The comments were highly irresponsible and reflect a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and its judges,” the Court held.
The Court further criticised Dubey’s ignorance regarding the role of constitutional courts, emphasising that such statements display a fundamental misunderstanding of the judiciary’s responsibilities and powers.
In a strong condemnation of hate speech, the Court stated, “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 the loss of dignity and self-worth of targeted groups and undermines the fabric of a multicultural society.”
While exercising restraint in declining to proceed with contempt, the Court reiterated that the strength of the judiciary lies not in retaliation, but in transparency, accountability and the public’s confidence.
“Judges must rely on the strength of their reasoning and the public’s discernment to distinguish between legitimate critique and malicious attacks,” it said.
Reaffirming the judiciary’s role in a constitutional democracy, the Court highlighted that judicial review is a fundamental feature of the Constitution and that all three branches of government must operate within constitutional limits.
“Judgments are not immune from scrutiny or correction but must face appeal, review, and curative mechanisms,” the bench added.
Another contempt plea against Dubey on the same issue remains pending before the apex court.
UNI SNG SS