Latest news with #RulestoRegulateProceedings
Hindustan Times
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
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.
The Hindu
21-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Nishikant Dubey's remarks on judiciary: Don't need our nod to file contempt plea, Supreme Court to petitioner
The Supreme Court of India on Monday (April 21, 2025) told a petitioner that he does not need its permission to file a contempt petition against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey over his criticism of the Supreme Court and Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna. The matter was mentioned before a Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih. The petitioner's counsel referred to a recent news report about Mr. Dubey's comments and said he wanted to file a contempt petition with the court's permission. "You file it. For filing, you don't require our permission," Justice Gavai said. The Bench said the petitioner needs to get a sanction from the Attorney General in the matter. Mr. Dubey launched a broadside against the Supreme Court on Saturday (April 19, 2025), saying Parliament and State Assemblies should be shut if the apex court has to make laws. He also took a swipe at CJI Khanna, holding him responsible for "civil wars" in the country. Mr. Dubey's remarks came following the Centre's assurance to the court that it would not be implementing some of the contentious provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act till the next day of hearing after the court raised questions over them. Watch | Explained: What are the key changes proposed in the Waqf Amendment Bill? Later, Anas Tanveer, a Supreme Court lawyer representing one of the litigants in the Waqf Act case, wrote to Attorney General R. Venkatramani seeking consent to initiate contempt proceedings against Mr. Dubey over his "grossly scandalous" remarks "aimed at lowering the dignity" of the top court. "I am writing this letter under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, to humbly seek your kind consent for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Nishikant Dubey, Member of Lok Sabha from Godda Parliamentary constituency in Jharkhand, for statements made by him in public that are grossly scandalous, misleading, and aimed at lowering the dignity and authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India," the letter said. The BJP on Saturday (April 19, 2025) distanced itself from Mr. Dubey's criticism of the Supreme Court, with party president J.P. Nadda calling the comments his personal views. He also affirmed the ruling party's respect for the judiciary as an inseparable part of democracy. Mr. Nadda said he had directed party leaders not to make such comments.
Hindustan Times
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
‘Don't need our nod to file contempt plea': SC to petitioner on Nishikant Dubey's remarks
The Supreme Court on Monday told a petitioner that he does not need its permission to file a contempt plea against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey over his criticism of the apex court and Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna. According to a PTI report, the matter was mentioned before a bench comprising justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih. The petitioner's counsel referred to a recent news report about Dubey's comments and said he wanted to file a contempt petition with the court's permission. "You file it. For filing, you don't require our permission," Justice Gavai was quoted by PTI as saying. ALSO READ: 'Close down Parliament if…': Nishikant Dubey attacks Supreme Court; Congress MP says 'not acceptable' The bench said the petitioner needs to get a sanction from the attorney general in the matter. In his letter to attorney general R Venkatramani, advocate Anas Tanveer termed Dubey's remarks "deeply derogatory and dangerously provocative". "I am writing this letter under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, to humbly seek your kind consent for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Shri Nishikant Dubey, Hon'ble Member of Lok Sabha from Godda parliamentary constituency in Jharkhand, for statements made by him in public that are grossly scandalous, misleading, and aimed at lowering the dignity and authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India," the letter said. ALSO READ: 'Why no action?': Oppn continues attack on BJP over Dubey's remarks on judiciary Nishikant Dubey, a BJP MP from Jharkhand's Godda, stoked a massive row after he held CJI Sanjiv Khanna responsible for the "civil wars" happening in the country. "Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, is responsible for all the civil wars happening in this country," Dubey told ANI. "Article 368 says that Parliament has the right to make all laws and the Supreme Court has the right to interpret the law. The top court is asking the President and Governor to tell what they have to go regarding the Bills. When Ram Mandir or Krishna Janamboomi or Gyanvapi comes, you (SC) says 'Show us the paper'. Mughals ke aane ke baad jo Masjid banne hai unke liye keh raho ho paper kaha se dikhao," he added. The BJP on Saturday distanced itself from Dubey's criticism of the Supreme Court, with party president J P Nadda calling the comments his personal views. He also affirmed the ruling party's respect for the judiciary as an inseparable part of democracy. Nadda said he had directed party leaders not to make such comments.
Time of India
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Nishikant Dubey's remarks on judiciary: Don't need our nod to file contempt plea, SC to petitioner
The Supreme Court on Monday told a petitioner that he does not need its permission to file a contempt petition against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey over his criticism of the apex court and Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna. The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih. The petitioner's counsel referred to a recent news report about Dubey's comments and said he wanted to file a contempt petition with the court's permission. "You file it. For filing, you don't require our permission," Justice Gavai said. 5 5 Next Stay Playback speed 1x Normal Back 0.25x 0.5x 1x Normal 1.5x 2x 5 5 / Skip Ads by by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Explore Cost-Effective Solar Panel Systems with Battery Storage Affordable Solar Power | search ads Search Now Undo The bench said the petitioner needs to get a sanction from the attorney general in the matter. Dubey launched a broadside against the Supreme Court on Saturday, saying Parliament and state assemblies should be shut if the apex court has to make laws. Live Events He also took a swipe at CJI Khanna, holding him responsible for "civil wars" in the country. Dubey's remarks came following the Centre's assurance to the court that it would not be implementing some of the contentious provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act till the next day of hearing after the court raised questions over them. Later, Anas Tanveer, a Supreme Court lawyer representing one of the litigants in the Waqf Act case, wrote to Attorney General R Venkatramani seeking consent to initiate contempt proceedings against Dubey over his "grossly scandalous" remarks "aimed at lowering the dignity" of the top court. "I am writing this letter under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, to humbly seek your kind consent for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Nishikant Dubey, Member of Lok Sabha from Godda parliamentary constituency in Jharkhand, for statements made by him in public that are grossly scandalous, misleading, and aimed at lowering the dignity and authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India," the letter said. The BJP on Saturday distanced itself from Dubey's criticism of the Supreme Court, with party president J P Nadda calling the comments his personal views. He also affirmed the ruling party's respect for the judiciary as an inseparable part of democracy. Nadda said he had directed party leaders not to make such comments.
