TODAY, THE SUPREME COURT REBUKED NISHIKANT DUBEY, a Member of Parliament (‘MP’) from the Bharatiya Janata Party (‘BJP’), for his "irresponsible" utterances accusing Chief Justice of India (‘CJI’) Sanjiv Khanna of being responsible for "civil war" in India.
A Division Bench of CJI Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that Dubey's comments were highly irresponsible and reflected a penchant for attracting attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and its judges.
The Bench, however, refused to initiate contempt proceedings against Dubey even though it found his utterances tended to scandalise and lower the authority of the Supreme Court.
"Courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements", the Bench noted in its order.
The Bench was hearing a petition filed by an advocate Vishal Tiwari seeking to initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Dubey, for a direction to register a case against him, and to issue an advisory to all Chief Secretaries to curb hate and provocative speeches by political parties and their leaders relating to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
The Bench said that normally it would not have heard the matter, but since it was not entertaining it, and the Waqf matter was being heard by them, they would dispose of the petition with some observations.
The Bench also said that the comments showed Dubey's ignorance about the role of constitutional courts and the duties and obligations bestowed on them under the Constitution.
"The statements made reflect the clear intent to impute motives to the Bench itself by naming the Chief Justice of India as “responsible for all the civil wars happening in India” and “in order to incite religious wars in this country, it is only and only the Supreme Court that is responsible", the Bench noted.
"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", the Bench added.
The Bench also made observations about the power of judicial review conferred on constitutional courts under the Constitution of India.
"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", the Bench held.
The Bench added that judicial decisions are made in accordance with legal principles and not in keeping with political, religious or community considerations.
"When citizens approach the court praying for exercise of the power of judicial review, they do so in furtherance of their fundamental and/or legal rights. The court’s consideration of such a prayer is the fulfilment of its constitutional duty", the Bench stated.
Under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, the High Court or the Supreme Court can initiate contempt proceedings either:
suo motu, or
on a motion made by the advocate-general (in case of the High Court), or
on a motion presented by any person, but with consent in writing from the Advocate-General.
In the case of the Supreme Court, it is the Attorney General whose consent is required to initiate contempt proceedings.
The Bench also disapproved of the hate speech. It said any attempt to spread communal hatred or indulge in hate speech must be dealt with an iron hand adding that 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", the Bench emphasised.
Dubey's remarks had come soon after the Bench comprising CJI Khanna, Justices Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan proposed to stay certain provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
The Supreme Court Bar Association had also sought contempt action against Dubey. A few individuals had also written to Attorney General R. Venkataramani, seeking his consent to initiate contempt proceedings against Dubey. However, till date no decision, whatsoever, has come from his office.