Crime Today News
The Supreme Court Bar Association on Tuesday sought contempt action against Bharatiya Janata Party MP Nishikant Dubey for his comments about the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Bar and Bench reported.
The bar association said that Dubey’s remark was “not only defamatory but also amounts to contempt” of the Supreme Court.
“This attack on the Supreme Court, as an institution, and qua the Chief Justice of India Mr Justice Sanjiv Khanna, as an individual, is unacceptable and must be dealt with in accordance with the law,” the association said in a statement, urging the attorney general to take action against Dubey.
Under the 1971 Contempt of Courts Act, an individual can file a contempt petition in the Supreme Court only with approval from the attorney general or the solicitor general, Bar and Bench reported.
A lawyer has already approached the attorney general requesting consent to file the petition.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court directed a plea seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Dubey be listed for hearing next week, Bar and Bench reported.
The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih by a lawyer who said that the attorney general had not yet responded to the request for permission to initiate contempt action against Dubey.
#Breaking Supreme Court Bar Association resolution says that statement by BJP leader Nishikant Dubey “is not only defamatory but also amounts to contempt of the Supreme Court. This attack on the Supreme Court, as an Institution, and qua the Chief Justice of India Mr. Justice… pic.twitter.com/5RWNtpFZmp
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) April 22, 2025
Dubey on Saturday said that Chief Justice Khanna was responsible for all “civil wars” in the country, ANI reported.
The BJP MP also held the Supreme Court responsible for “inciting religious wars” and said the top court “is going beyond its limits…”.
“If one has to go to the Supreme Court for everything, then Parliament and state Assembly should be shut,” Dubey was quoted as saying by the news agency.
Dubey cited the court’s decisions to decriminalise homosexuality in 2018 and the striking down of section 66(a) of the Information Technology Act in 2021.
The MP from Jharkhand’s Godda claimed that the court had decriminalised homosexuality despite “all [religious] communities considering it wrong”. He also referred to the Donald Trump administration in the United States passing an executive order in January, in which it said that only two sexes will be recognised.
The Godda MP claimed that section 66(a) of the IT Act was necessary to stop the misuse of online platforms to share objectionable content.
Dubey also said: “When the issue of the Ram temple comes up, you [the Supreme Court] say ‘show documents’; when the issue of Krishna Janmabhoomi comes up in Mathura, you will say ‘show documents’; when it comes to the Gyanvapi mosque, you will again say ‘show documents’.”
“But when it comes to the mosques built after the arrival of the Mughals, you say there are no documents to show,” he had added.
The BJP MP had also questioned how the Supreme Court could issue directives to its appointing authority. “The president appoints the chief justice of India,” he said.
The comment was in reference to the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgement imposing a three-month deadline for the president to approve or reject bills referred by state governors.
Dubey made the remark while answering a reporter’s question about his social media post on Saturday morning in which the BJP MP said that Parliament “should be closed if the Supreme Court makes the law”.
The MP’s remarks came amid the Supreme Court hearing the challenges to the recently-passed Waqf Amendment Act.
Besides the bar association, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association on Tuesday passed a resolution condemning Dubey’s remarks, Live Law reported.
“Such remarks are not only factually baseless and deeply irresponsible, but they also amount to a direct and unwarranted attack on the independence, dignity, and majesty of our country’s highest constitutional court,” the resolution was quoted as saying.
The Advocates-on-Record Association added that Dubey’s statements were “defamatory in nature and seek to lower the judiciary’s authority in the eyes of the public”.
The resolution emphasised the importance of judicial independence in a democracy and stated that while disagreements with the court’s decisions are acceptable, they must be expressed respectfully and within legal bounds.
The association also urged public representatives to “exercise restraint, uphold constitutional values, and respect the dignity of the judiciary”.
📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC
Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting
