NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday told a lawyer that he did not need its permission but the Attorney General (AG) of India’s consent to initiate contempt proceedings against BJP Lok Sabha member Nishikant Dubey over his deplorable remarks regarding the judiciary and the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
"You file it (criminal contempt plea). For filing, you don't require our permission. Make a case before the AG. He will give permission, " remarked a Bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih.
Under Section 15 (1) (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Supreme Court may initiate criminal contempt proceedings on a private complaint only after a written consent is given by the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.
Amid ongoing hearings on the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, Nishikant Dubey questioned the judiciary's role in legislative matters, suggesting that if courts assume the task of lawmaking, the existence of Parliament becomes redundant.
Dubey's comments targeting the Supreme Court have drawn significant attention, particularly, the word “anarchy’’ which he has used and "inciting religious wars".
The controversy has sparked political debate, with Opposition parties like the Congress accusing the BJP of attempting to undermine the judiciary.
During the hearings, the Central government assured the Supreme Court that it would not de-notify provisions related to 'Waqf-by-user' or include non-Muslim members in the Waqf Board.
This assurance followed the top court's indication that it might consider staying certain parts of the law.
Meanwhile, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has disassociated itself from the remarks made by two of its Members of Parliament (MPs) -- Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma – clarifying that these statements were “personal opinions” and do not reflect the party’s stance.
In a post on X, BJP chief J.P. Nadda distanced the party from the comments by the MPs.
"The BJP has nothing to do with the statements made by BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma on the judiciary and the Chief Justice of the country. These are their personal statements, but the BJP neither agrees with such statements nor does it ever support such statements. The BJP completely rejects these statements, " J.P. Nadda said.
The party reiterated its commitment to accepting judicial orders and suggestions and has instructed its members to refrain from making such comments in the future.
Dubey's remarks echo earlier criticisms of the judiciary by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who questioned the role of judges in legislative matters.
These incidents have fuelled broader discussions about the balance of power between India's legislative and judicial branches and the implications for democratic governance.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that Governor R.N. Ravi's refusal to approve 10 Bills in Tamil Nadu was both "illegal and arbitrary".
It set a three-month deadline for Presidential and gubernatorial approval of Bills passed by the legislature for a second time.
Additionally, the court suggested that the President should consult the Supreme Court on Bills involving Constitutional issues.