SC to hear plea against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey's remarks on judiciary next week
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear next week a petition seeking contempt of court action against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament (MP) Nishikant Dubey for his controversial comments on the apex court and the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
A bench headed by justice Bhushan R Gavai, who is in line to be the next CJI, directed the petition to be listed next week after advocate Narendra Mishra mentioned the case.
Advocate Mishra said that while letters are pending with Attorney General for seeking his consent to initiate criminal contempt against Dubey, no action was forthcoming even as the statements against the CJI and the top court were getting widely circulated.
Incidentally, Mishra had approached the justice Gavai-led bench on Monday with the same request when he was asked to approach AG for consent. Two lawyers — Anas Tanwir and Shiv Kumar Tripathi — had sought AG's consent on Saturday soon after Dubey made the comments while speaking to news agencies.
For filing any petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the Supreme Court, Section 15(1)(b) of the 1971 Act along with the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 or the 1975 Rules require prior consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. The relevant rule - Rule 3(c) of the 1975 Rules provides that either the court can take it up suo motu or a petition can be maintained directly by the AG or SG or by a private person after taking AG/SG consent.
Dubey on Saturday triggered a row, saying, 'CJI Sanjiv Khanna is responsible for the civil wars taking place in the country' and that 'the Supreme Court is taking the country towards anarchy'.
His outrage was directed against the apex court's April 8 decision in a petition filed by Tamil Nadu government against the action of TN Governor RN Ravi to refer 10 bills for Presidental assent after it was re-validated by the legislature for a second time.
The top court found the governor's action to be unconstitutional and set timelines asking the Governor to decide on bills within three months. The court also ordered that if bills are referred to President for assent, the same should be decided by the latter in three months.
Dubey cited Article 368 of the Constitution and said that law-making is the job of Parliament while the Supreme Court is only meant to interpret laws.
Dubey also cast aspersion on the impartiality of the judiciary by questioning the court's critical observations on the 2025 Waqf Amendment Act's dilution of the 'Waqf by user' provision.
Advocate Mishra said, 'The comments (of Dubey) are hurting the court, and the government is not taking any action. The video is viral all over the country and there is no action on the letters written to Attorney General.
Mishra also sought orders directing the removal of videos of Dubey's comments from social media platforms.
Advocate Tanwir alleged that Dubey's remarks were 'grossly scandalous', 'misleading' and aimed at lowering the dignity and authority of the court.
He said, 'These remarks are not only factually incorrect but are also intended to scandalise the Supreme Court, erode public trust, and incite communal distrust in judiciary's impartiality, all of which clearly fall within the meaning of criminal contempt as defined under section 2(c)(i) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.'
Soon after Dubey's remarks courted controversy, BJP president JP Nadda distanced himself from the comments and warned the Jharkhand MP from further making such statements.
Earlier, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar had described Article 142 of the Constitution – which gives Supreme Court extraordinary powers to do complete justice – as a 'nuclear weapon' used by the judiciary against democratic forces. He also criticised the top court for acting as 'super Parliament' for its directions in the TN case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Judicial activism shouldn't turn into judicial terrorism: CJI Gavai
NEW DELHI Chief Justice of India B R Gavai has emphasised that judicial activism is bound to stay but cautioned that it should not be turned into judicial terrorism. CJI Gavai said power of judicial review should be used sparingly and be used only if a statute is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution. "Judicial activism is bound to stay. At the same time, judicial activism should not be turned into judicial terrorism. So, at times, you try to exceed the limits and try to enter into an area where, normally, the judiciary should not enter," he said in response to a question from a legal news portal. Gavai described the Constitution as a "quiet revolution etched in ink" and a transformative force that not only guarantees rights but actively uplifts the historically oppressed. Speaking at the Oxford Union in London on the theme 'From Representation to Realisation: Embodying the Constitution's Promise' on Tuesday, Gavai, the second Dalit and the first Buddhist to hold India's highest judicial office, highlighted the positive impact of the Constitution on marginalised communities and gave his example to drive home the point. "Many decades ago, millions of citizens of India were called 'untouchables'. They were told they were impure. They were told that they did not belong. They were told that they could not speak for themselves. But here we are today, where a person belonging to those very people is speaking openly, as the holder of the highest office in the judiciary of the country," he said.
India Gazette
an hour ago
- India Gazette
"Will move SC to challenge DDA's demarcation of properties in Batla House area": AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan
New Delhi [India], June 12 (ANI): Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan on Thursday said he would move the Supreme Court to challenge the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) demarcation of properties in the Batla House area of Okhla. The move followed directions from the High Court's Division Bench, which granted affected residents three days to file individual writ petitions. This comes a day after Khan withdrew his Public Interest Litigation (PIL) from the Delhi High Court that had sought to stop demolition action initiated by the DDA. Speaking to ANI, the AAP MLA said, 'The Division Bench has given time for the affected parties to file their writ individually within three days. We have also withdrawn our PIL. People have been living there since 1971, and you suddenly declared it unauthorised and separated it from the PM-UDAY scheme.' '...The manner in which DDA wants to demolish this entire area is beyond my demarcation done by them is not accurate. I withdrew my plea because I will challenge the demarcation before the Supreme Court,' he said. Khan withdrew the PIL on Wednesday to inform the residents of his area to file an appropriate petition before the court. The withdrawal was allowed by a division bench of Justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court, which suggested that individual residents approach the court with their grievances. 'In furtherance of the last order, senior counsel on the instructions of briefing counsel seeks permission to withdraw the petition filed by the petitioner, who is a public-spirited person, so he can inform the residents of Batla House to file an appropriate petition before the court,' the High Court said. At the outset of the hearing, the High Court noted that some aggrieved individuals have already been given protection by the court after hearing their individual petitions. The High Court at the beginning emphasised that any adverse order while deciding the PIL may affect the rights of the individuals who are already before the single-judge bench. The court has also emphasised that any aggrieved individual may approach the court like other people who have already approached the court. This issue is not a subject matter of the PIL. Khan had filed a PIL challenging the notice issued by the DDA for the demolition of alleged illegal properties in the area of Batla House in Okhla. The High Court on Monday had refused to grant an immediate interim stay on the demolition, which was proposed for June 11. Earlier, the apex court on May 7 refused to grant relief and directed the demolition of the illegal properties. Senior advocate Salman Khurshid appeared for the petitioner and argued that they (DDA) are pasting notices on the properties which fall beyond the khasra no. 279. The order of the Supreme Court was regarding the illegal properties within this khasra. The counsel for respondents contended, on the other hand, that the PIL is not maintainable as the Supreme Court specifically directed that the individual aggrieved persons adopt the legal remedy. DDA's counsel also said that the notices issued by the DDA are not generic and are in compliance with the Supreme Court. All the notices were given 15 days to respond. No demolition was carried out during the notice period. (ANI)
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
'Judicial activism shouldn't turn into judicial terrorism': CJI BR Gavai
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai has emphasised that judicial activism is bound to stay, but it should not be turned into judicial terrorism. CJI Gavai said the power of judicial review should be used sparingly and only if a statute is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution. "Judicial activism is bound to stay. At the same time, judicial activism should not be turned into judicial terrorism. So, at times, you try to exceed the limits and try to enter into an area where normally the judiciary should not enter," Gavai said in response to a question from a legal news portal. Gavai described the Constitution as a "quiet revolution etched in ink" and a transformative force that not only guarantees rights but actively uplifts the historically oppressed. Speaking at the Oxford Union in London on the theme 'From Representation to Realisation: Embodying the Constitution's Promise' on Tuesday, the CJI, the second Dalit and the first Buddhist to hold India's highest judicial office, highlighted the positive impact of the Constitution on marginalised communities and gave his example to drive home the point. "Many decades ago, millions of citizens of India were called 'untouchables'. They were told they were impure. They were told that they did not belong. They were told that they could not speak for themselves. "But here we are today, where a person belonging to those very people is speaking openly, as the holder of the highest office in the judiciary of the country," the CJI said.
