The Supreme Court on 8 May publicly rebuked BJP MP Nishikant Dubey for inflammatory remarks against the judiciary. A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna declined a contempt petition against Dubey but “censured” his statements as “highly irresponsible” and “absurd” and reflecting “a penchant to attract attention”. The Court’s order noted that Dubey’s comments—accusing the Chief Justice of sparking “civil wars” and warning that if the Court “has to make laws, then Parliament should be shut down”—”tend to scandalise and lower the authority of the Supreme Court”. Emphasising that India’s Constitution enshrines judicial review, the court reaffirmed that “courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements”. The bench thus refused to punish Dubey, stressing that contempt powers must be exercised with restraint.
The order came against the Court’s ongoing review of the newly enacted Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. In mid-April, the Court heard dozens of petitions arguing that the amendments diluted the autonomy of Muslim waqf institutions and unfairly targeted “waqf by user” properties (lands informally treated as waqf). Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the law, asserting that waqf is not an essential religious right. The Court raised concerns about provisions such as allowing non-Muslim members on Waqf boards and retroactively invalidating many waqf-by-user sites. As an interim measure, the government assured the Court that “no Waqf, including a Waqf by user… shall be de-notified” and that it would refrain from appointing non-Muslims to the Central or State Waqf Councils until the next hearing. Petitions have been fast-tracked, with hearings continuing into May under a new bench (CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih). The Supreme Court has not yet issued a final ruling on the Act’s validity; its comments on Dubey’s remarks were delivered orally and by order in contempt.
Dubey’s Statements and Social Media Reaction
Dubey’s comments began in mid-April amid the Waqf Act hearings. On 19 April, he posted on X (Twitter) in Hindi: “Kanoon yadi Supreme Court hi banayega, to Sansad Bhavan bandh kar dena chahiye” – translated as “If the Supreme Court has to make laws, then the Parliament building should be closed”. He followed up in media interviews by accusing the Supreme Court of “going beyond its limits” and claimed the judiciary was “responsible for inciting religious wars in the country”. Dubey specifically blamed Chief Justice Khanna for causing “all the civil wars happening in this country”. He also criticised past Supreme Court rulings – decriminalising homosexuality (Article 377) and striking down Section 66A – as examples of judicial “overreach” steering India towards anarchy.
After the Supreme Court on 5 May refused to entertain a public interest petition against him, Dubey took to social media again. He posted a line from a Bollywood song, Umrao Jaan: “Dil ke armaan aansuon mein beh gaye” (literally, “the hopes of the heart have flowed away in tears”), mocking the petitioner’s failure. In summary, Dubey has doubled down on his stance. In public replies, he reiterated his contention that the Court should not encroach on Parliament’s law-making role and accused the judiciary of undermining its legitimacy.
Political and Public Reactions
Dubey’s remarks triggered swift political fallout. The BJP leadership publicly disowned his statements. Party president J.P. Nadda described Dubey’s comments as his “personal opinions” and reiterated the BJP’s “deep respect” for the judiciary. Nadda and other leaders instructed MPs to avoid such language, emphasising that courts are “an integral part of our democracy”.
Opposition parties and lawyers reacted harshly. Congress MP Manickam Tagore called Dubey’s attack “defamatory” and “unacceptable,” urging judges to take note since Dubey spoke outside Parliament. Several legal forums condemned the comments: the Supreme Court Bar Association passed a resolution condemning Dubey’s allegations against the Court and urged the Attorney General to allow contempt proceedings. One petition filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari argued Dubey’s statements violated criminal contempt provisions by “intentionally scandalising” the judiciary and sought court directives to remove the video of his remarks from social media.
National figures weighed in. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar (who recently criticised the Court for setting deadlines on presidential assent to bills) lamented that India was never meant to be a system where judges act as “super Parliament,” echoing Dubey’s concerns more restrainedly. Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma (BJP) pointed to past instances of Congress leaders attacking the judiciary, suggesting a double standard; Dubey even quoted an Urdu verse in response to Sarma’s post.
By contrast, many civil society voices defended the judiciary. Senior advocate Manan Mishra (Bar Council of India Chairman) said, “The judiciary is supreme,” and its dignity must be maintained. Former Supreme Court Bar Association chief Vikas Singh noted that anyone aggrieved by a judgment can seek review, and “whatever the Supreme Court has said is final”. There is “no basis” to hold the Chief Justice responsible for unrelated riots. Supreme Court lawyer Ashwani Dubey (no relation) added that it was “totally wrong to implicate the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice… for violence,” and that public faith in the judiciary remains strong. Many editorials and legal analysts warned that elected officials must respect constitutional boundaries and that scurrilous attacks on judges risk undermining the rule of law.
Context: Waqf Law and Judicial Review
The immediate backdrop to this row is the contentious Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Passed by Parliament in early April, the law introduced measures to tackle what the government called a “menace” of bogus waqf claims, such as creating a procedure to denotify long-neglected properties and allowing limited non-Muslim participation in administrative bodies. Critics (including Muslim leaders and minority-rights groups) argue the amendments violate Articles 25–26 (freedom of religion) and 14 (equality) by singling out waqf institutions. The petitioners contend, for example, that “waqf by user” (informal religious endowments without formal registration) should not be extinguished, and that government appointees on waqf boards infringe on minority management rights.
The Supreme Court, recognising the Act’s potential impact on religious and property rights, has been scrutinising it closely. So far, no final judgment has been issued; the Court’s recent direction to the President (by 12 May) to approve state bills, and its critical questions on the waqf law, suggest it is taking these challenges seriously. The political row over Dubey’s comments only adds to the intensity of the debate: as the judiciary asserts its role under the Constitution, legislators are publicly warning against perceived judicial activism. Legal scholars note that while judicial review is essential, an “obvious distortion or gross misstatement” aimed at the courts is also perilous.
Expert Opinions and Analysis
Legal experts essentially condemned Dubey’s rhetoric while defending the independence of the courts. Advocates pointed out that Dubey’s allegations — for example, blaming the Court for communal violence — were factually baseless. One noted that violence in West Bengal (arising from protests over the waqf amendments) subsided once the Supreme Court began hearing the case. Many lawyers emphasised that institutional remedies (review or appeals) are the proper response to an unfavourable judgment, not political grandstanding. Bar Council Chairman Mishra urged that all branches of government must respect each other’s constitutional limits.
At the same time, some analysts expressed concern about an apparent politicisation of constitutional processes. ThePrint said disparaging the judiciary in communal terms can erode public trust and invite contempt charges. The Supreme Court itself warned that “any attempt to spread communal hatred or indulge in hate speech must be dealt with an iron hand”. Ultimately, the episode underscores a fraught moment in India’s separation of powers: the Court continues its review of the waqf law and other issues (e.g. legislative timelines), while some ruling party figures publicly contest its legitimacy. Legal analysts are watching closely, noting that how this clash is resolved will have implications for judicial authority and democratic norms in India.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s comments and the Supreme Court’s stern rebuke highlights a growing tension between India’s legislature and the judiciary. While Dubey’s remarks reflect a broader political unease with judicial activism, the Supreme Court has reasserted its constitutional mandate to uphold the rule of law and protect minority rights, particularly in the context of the contentious Waqf (Amendment) Act. The judiciary’s restraint in not invoking contempt powers and its firm censure underscore a commitment to democratic dialogue over punitive action. However, the episode serves as a cautionary tale that irresponsible political rhetoric can undermine institutional integrity, and all branches of government must work within their constitutional frameworks to preserve India’s democratic balance. As the Supreme Court continues to deliberate on the waqf law, its decisions will likely shape not only religious rights and property jurisprudence but also the evolving contours of the separation of powers in the country.
About Author
Ruhan Deb is a third-year law student at Symbiosis Law School, Noida. He is keenly interested in litigation, focusing on Criminal Law and Competition Law. Beyond the legal realm, Ruhan is passionate about global politics and history, complementing his analytical approach to legal studies. His multidisciplinary interests reflect a commitment to understanding law in broader social and geopolitical contexts.