Supreme Court Rebukes BJP MP Nishikant Dubey for Attempt to Undermine Judiciary, Asserts Zero Tolerance for Hate Speech

(Judicial Quest News Network)

New Delhi, May 5, 2025 — In a strongly worded order, the Supreme Court of India censured Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament Nishikant Dubey for making inflammatory remarks aimed at the judiciary and Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna. The Court expressed grave concern over Dubey’s statements, which it viewed as a deliberate attempt to erode public confidence in the judicial system.

“ The statements which no doubt tends to scandalize and lower the authority of the Supreme Court of India, if not interfere or tend to interfere with the judicial proceedings pending before this Court, and have the tendency to interfere and obstruct the administration of justice”

The remarks in question were made during a media interview with news agency ANI, where Dubey accused the Chief Justice of being “responsible for all civil wars in India” and alleged that the Supreme Court was inciting religious conflict. These comments followed the apex court’s decision to consider a stay on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

“In our opinion, the 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. This apart, the statements show ignorance about the role of the constitutional courts and the duties and obligations bestowed on them under the Constitution”

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar issued the order on May 5, stating that such remarks were not only inflammatory but aimed at casting aspersions on the integrity of the judiciary. The Court noted that Dubey’s statements sought to “shake the confidence in and credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public,” warning that such conduct represents a serious threat to the foundational values of a constitutional democracy.

“While we are not entertaining the present 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.”

While the Court chose not to initiate contempt proceedings against Dubey as requested by the petitioner—Advocate C.R.J. Tiwari—it emphasized that this restraint was a matter of judicial discretion, not leniency. The bench clarified that Dubey’s statements did not meet the threshold required under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to warrant penal action.

“We 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.”

Nonetheless, the Court did not mince words in condemning the content and tone of Dubey’s remarks. It noted that the statements revealed a “profound ignorance of the role of constitutional courts” and the duties entrusted to them by the Constitution. The Bench stressed that any speech inciting communal hatred or targeting specific communities must be dealt with firmly, warning that such rhetoric poses a risk to public harmony and is potentially criminal in nature.

“Any attempt to cause alienation or humiliation of a targeted group is a criminal offence and must be dealt with accordingly,” the Court underscored.

The petition before the Court alleged that Dubey’s statements amounted to hate speech and contempt of court, potentially punishable under both the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It called for Suo motu contempt proceedings against the BJP leader.

In its ruling, however, the Supreme Court offered a broader reflection on the nature and limits of judicial power. The Bench stated that courts are not fragile institutions that “wither and wilt under ludicrous statements.” Instead, it emphasized that judicial strength lies in restraint, wisdom, and adherence to constitutional values rather than personal vindication.

“The authority to initiate contempt proceedings is a matter of discretion, not impulse. Not every provocative statement warrants punishment,” the Court said.

Reaffirming its commitment to democratic ideals, the Bench emphasized that the judiciary derives its legitimacy from open hearings, reasoned judgments, and public trust—not from silencing critics. Judges, it noted, must rely on the power of their reasoning and trust that the public can discern between constructive criticism and malicious slander.

“Judgments of constitutional courts are subject to scrutiny through appeals, reviews, and curative petitions. This built-in accountability is a strength, not a vulnerability,” the Court stated, reaffirming that judicial review remains a cornerstone of India’s constitutional democracy.

The ruling also emphasized the principle of constitutional supremacy, reiterating that all branches of government—the legislature, executive, and judiciary—must operate within the bounds set by the Constitution.

Meanwhile, a second contempt petition against Dubey related to the same issue is currently pending before the Supreme Court.