Political Storm Erupts Over Nishikant Dubey’s Comments on Judiciary
India’s judiciary, long regarded as the guardian of constitutional integrity, has once again become the center of a political and legal storm. The latest controversy has erupted over BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s statements criticizing the Supreme Court of India and Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, which many have described as dangerously provocative and disrespectful.
“Supreme Court Crossing Its Limits,” Says Dubey
Speaking critically about the Supreme Court’s decision on the Waqf Amendment Act and its role in constitutional interpretation, Dubey stated that the apex court is overstepping its boundaries. He controversially remarked that if the Supreme Court wants to make laws, then “Parliament and State Assemblies should be shut down.”
Dubey even went a step further by blaming the CJI himself for internal conflicts in the country, stating that “all the civil wars happening are because of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna.”
Singhvi Responds: A Call for Swift Contempt Proceedings
“An Attack on Judicial Institutions,” Says Congress MP
Senior Advocate and Congress Rajya Sabha MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi sharply condemned Dubey’s comments. Posting on social platform X (formerly Twitter), Singhvi wrote:
“It seems like the Supreme Court, the CJI, and other respected institutions are fodder for senior BJP leaders. Dubey’s direct and derogatory comments are not just unacceptable—they are outrageous. This must not go unchecked.”
Singhvi also appealed to the Attorney General of India, R. Venkataramani, to grant permission for contempt of court proceedings without delay, stating that the sanctity of the judiciary must be protected from political slander.
Legal Push for Contempt: Advocates Take Action
Letter Sent to Attorney General
Adding weight to the demand, Supreme Court advocate Anas Tanwir—who represents a petitioner in the Waqf Act case—has written to the Attorney General, requesting consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Nishikant Dubey.
In the letter, Tanwir emphasized:
Dubey’s comments were “highly defamatory and aimed at lowering the dignity” of the highest court.
The remarks amount to a “deliberate attempt to scandalize and influence public perception” against the judiciary.
Such statements, if left unaddressed, undermine public trust in one of India’s most crucial institutions.
Tanwir called the comments “shockingly reckless and dangerously inflammatory.”
Judiciary Under Verbal Fire – A Growing Trend?
This incident is not isolated. Over the past few months, there have been increasing instances of politicians questioning the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, especially when court rulings conflict with legislative or executive decisions.
Analysts warn that such patterns may erode the separation of powers, and set a dangerous precedent of judicial intimidation.
The Supreme Court, by constitutional design, is the final interpreter of the law. Any attempt to publicly delegitimize its role, especially by elected representatives, raises red flags for the health of India’s democracy.
What’s Next: Will the Attorney General Act?
All eyes are now on Attorney General R. Venkataramani, who holds the statutory power to allow the initiation of contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court.
If the AG gives consent:
A criminal contempt case can be filed before the Supreme Court against Dubey.
He would be required to defend his statements before the bench.
A possible outcome could include apology, fine, or even jail, depending on the gravity assessed by the Court.
In the past, the Court has taken a zero-tolerance approach toward attacks on its dignity, including holding public figures in contempt for casting aspersions on its neutrality.
Conclusion: A Moment of Reckoning for Free Speech and Responsibility
In a democracy, freedom of speech is a cherished right, but it comes with responsibilities—especially for lawmakers. When those in power publicly challenge the integrity of the judiciary, it threatens the very balance of power that holds democratic systems together.
As the debate over Dubey’s remarks intensifies, this moment presents a litmus test: Can India uphold both freedom and accountability, criticism and civility, in equal measure?
The coming days will reveal whether the Attorney General acts, and whether the Supreme Court decides to make an example—to show that respect for institutions is not optional, even in political disagreement.
