On Monday, the Supreme Court clarified to a petitioner that filing a contempt petition against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey does not require prior approval from the court. The statement came after Dubey’s controversial remarks against the judiciary, including Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, sparked a call for legal action.
During a brief hearing, the bench, led by Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih, was approached by a lawyer who cited a recent news report detailing Dubey’s critical comments. Justice Gavai responded straightforwardly, “You file it. For filing, you don’t require our permission,” indicating that the standard legal procedures should be followed without special sanctions from the Supreme Court.
However, the justices noted that the petitioner must obtain the requisite sanction from the Attorney General before proceeding with a contempt case.
The controversy stems from Dubey’s vehement speech on Saturday, where he criticized the Supreme Court’s role in legislative matters, suggesting that “Parliament and state assemblies should be shut if the apex court has to make laws.” His comments extended to CJI Khanna, whom he blamed for inciting “civil wars” in the country.
These remarks were made following assurances given by the Centre to the Supreme Court regarding the contentious provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, which will not be implemented until further review by the court.
In reaction to Dubey’s statements, Supreme Court lawyer Anas Tanveer, representing a litigant in the Waqf Act case, wrote to Attorney General R Venkatramani. Tanveer’s letter seeks permission to initiate contempt proceedings against Dubey, labeling his remarks as “grossly scandalous” and harmful to the “dignity and authority” of the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the BJP has taken a step back from Dubey’s comments, with party president J P Nadda emphasizing that these were Dubey’s personal views and do not reflect the party’s stance. Nadda reinforced the BJP’s respect for the judiciary, describing it as a crucial pillar of Indian democracy, and advised party members to refrain from making disparaging remarks about the judicial system.
