New Delhi: BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma’s controversial remarks on the Supreme Court, including against Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, faced pushback from the legal community, with some senior members suggesting they could be seen as contempt.
Hours after their remarks, BJP president J.P. Nadda distanced the party from the remarks, calling them “personal statements”. In a post on X, he said, “The BJP completely rejects these statements.”
Justice Amar Saran, former Allahabad High Court judge, told ThePrint, “To me, it appears that the CJI is, in fact, trying to prevent civil war in the country. He is ensuring peace in the society, along with preventing unnecessary injury to an aggrieved Muslim population.”
On Saturday, speaking to the ANI news agency, Dubey said, “The Supreme Court is solely responsible for inciting religious wars in the country”. His remarks came amid the ongoing hearings in the Supreme Court on the batch of petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025.
Dubey even blamed CJI Khanna for “all the civil wars in the country”.
“If one has to go to the Supreme Court for everything, then Parliament and State Assembly should be shut,” he further said. Earlier, Dubey also made a cryptic post along these lines on X.
क़ानून यदि सुप्रीम कोर्ट ही बनाएगा तो संसद भवन बंद कर देना चाहिये
— Dr Nishikant Dubey (@nishikant_dubey) April 19, 2025
On Thursday, the Centre assured the court it would pause the implementation of several key provisions of the act, including appointing new non-Muslims members to the Waqf boards and denotifying the waqfs, including waqf-by-user, either declared by registration or a gazette notification.
Speaking to ThePrint, Justice Saran further said, “If temples cannot have non-Hindus in their management committees, then how can non-official Hindus be imposed on Waqf managing bodies?”
“That is why the SG (Solicitor General Tushar Mehta) was forced to concede to this point as well as to the position that there would be no instantaneous takeover of even long-user Muslim Waqf properties by actions of loyal Collectors.”
Dubey also launched a scathing attack on the Supreme Court’s judgment setting a three-month timeline for the President to decide on bills referred by the state governors.
Referring to this judgment, Dubey also alleged that this means the Supreme Court wants to take this country towards “anarchy”.
In a separate interview on Saturday, former Uttar Pradesh deputy chief minister Sharma told ANI that nobody can challenge the President, who, he said, is “supreme”.
‘Border on contempt’
Former Justice Saran said, “The words of Nishikant Dubey or even of Dinesh Sharma in trying to browbeat the Constitution-abiding SC in this manner really amounts to duplicity and borders on contempt.”
Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa expressed “grave concern and deep dismay” at Dubey’s remarks.
“These comments are completely inappropriate, constitutionally untenable, and legally impermissible. They are not only factually unfounded but also constitute a serious affront to the dignity, independence, and impartiality of the Supreme Court, which is the sentinel on the qui vive of our Constitution,” he told ThePrint.
Pahwa even said that Dubey’s remarks “arguably fall squarely within the statutory definition of criminal contempt”, adding, “While elected representatives are entitled to express dissent and even critique judicial decisions, such critique must be rooted in constitutional decorum and legal reasoning—not invective, insinuation, or hyperbole.”
“The judiciary is not above accountability, but it is protected by the constitutional framework precisely to insulate it from political pressure and populist rhetoric.”
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said that this “demonstrates once again a lack of judgment and restraint in our public discourse”.
“The judiciary is not an enemy, but for decades, small party functionaries make comments like these, hoping to be lauded by their higher-ups. Unfortunately for Mr Dubey, even his party has distanced itself from these ludicrous remarks,” he told ThePrint.
“I am sure this is not the last we have seen of such embarrassments, and it may bode well for the press to ignore such outbursts in future.”
‘Unwarranted, unfortunate’
With regard to the Supreme Court’s directive to the President, Dubey asked in the interview, “How can you give direction to the appointing authority? The President appoints the Chief Justice of India. The Parliament makes the law of this country. You will dictate that Parliament?”
This, Dubey said, means “that you want to take this country towards anarchy”. He warned that there will be a detailed discussion on this when the Parliament is in session.
Pahwa asserted that “reckless public statements” such as this “risk eroding the public’s trust in the judiciary and can have a chilling effect on the functioning of judges who must decide sensitive constitutional and statutory issues without fear or favour”.
The court’s judgments, he said, are subject to legal scrutiny, “not political vilification”. Pahwa said that if there is disagreement with a verdict, the remedy lies in seeking review or legislative amendment where permissible, ”not in launching personal attacks on the institution that upholds the rule of law”.
Former judge and Delhi-based lawyer Bharat Chugh called the comments “unwarranted and unfortunate”, saying, “They (the comments) betray a lack of understanding of the court’s role in protection of fundamental rights and the soul and basic structure of our constitution.”
Chugh explained that Constitutional functionaries are found wanting in their conduct and don’t act in the spirit of the Constitution, even though they may be, strictly speaking, within the letter of the Constitution. The court is not only empowered but also obligated to lay down guidelines and ensure that authorities act in the spirit of the constitution and important basic features of our constitution, such as federalism, secularism, and fundamental rights.
“The legislature is indeed empowered to legislate, but that power to legislate is subject to the basic structure of the constitution, and any legislation or executive act or inaction that violates fundamental rights and basic structure is to be struck down,” he told ThePrint.
This feature of the Constitution, he said, is what has protected and nurtured the nation and protected it so far.
(Edited by Sanya Mathur)
Also read: Close down Parliament if Supreme Court has to make laws, says BJP MP Nishikant Dubey
The Supreme Court has encroached upon the domains of the Executive and the Legislature. Such uncalled for activism on the part of the incumbent CJI is deplorable and must be condemned.
Mr. Nishikant Dubey is absolutely right in his assertions. If the Supreme Court thinks it can force the President of India to sign on a bill within a time limit, it is living in a fool’s paradise. The President is senior and superior to the CJI in the Constitutional scheme of things and therefore the CJI cannot pass any binding orders on the President.
If the CJI and his brother/sister judges think their job is to frame laws then what exactly is the function of the Parliament or Legislative Assemblies?
Let there be civil wat in the country.
If they think they can win, let them try. They tried to make Kashmir Valley a part of Pakistan for the last 75 years. Did they succeed? Were they able to gain even an inch of our land?
If they think they can win a civil war, let them start it. We Hindus will finish the war and settle the problem once and for all.
The CJI Sanjiv Khanna need not shoulder the burden of “saving the nation from a possible civil war”.