'Highly Irresponsible': BJP MP Nishikant Dubey Faces Supreme Court Wrath

New Delhi: BJP’s controversial MP from Godda, Nishikant Dubey has got a severe dressing down from the apex court.

In what is a blow to Dubey, already under fire from the Opposition, the Supreme Court bench, led by the chief justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has said that his “comments were highly irresponsible and reflect a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court.”

Dubey has been called out for “statements [that] show ignorance about the role of the constitutional courts and the duties and obligations bestowed on them under the Constitution.”

LiveLaw reports that the bench comprising CJI Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was dealing with a PIL filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari seeking suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Dubey and to register FIRs against hate speeches made by political leaders in the context of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025.

Dubey had earlier made sharp statements targeting the Supreme Court, forcing even the BJP chief JP Nadda "distance" himself from them. Dubey had said the Supreme Court was spreading “anarchy” and would be responsible for “religious wars”.

When the Supreme Court had laid down the law in the matter of interpreting how much latitude governors had in states to sit on bills passed by state legislatures, Dubey had said, "Which law says that the President has to take a decision within three months? This means you want to take this country towards anarchy...Supreme Court is responsible for inciting religious wars in the country. The Supreme Court is going beyond its limits. If one has to go to the Supreme Court for everything, then Parliament and State Assembly should be shut.”

'Any attempt to indulge in hate speech must be dealt with an iron hand'

The Supreme Court has said that “courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements.” Therefore, as they “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”, they would refrain from taking the request to lodge contempt proceedings against the BJP MP.

This Court has said, citing from a 1978 order “that the judiciary is not immune from criticism, but when criticism is an obvious distortion or a gross misstatement, which is made in a manner designed to lower the respect of the judiciary and destroy public confidence, it should not be ignored.”

The Court has said that “Courts believe in values like free press, fair trial, judicial fearlessness and community confidence. Thus, courts need not protect their verdicts and decisions by taking recourse to the power of contempt.

Surely, courts and judges have shoulders broad enough and an implicit trust that the people would perceive and recognise when criticism or critique is biased, scandalous and ill-intentioned.”

The bench has also stated that while it is not entertaining the writ petition, “we make it clear that 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 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.”