The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking the initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Member of Parliament Nishikant Dubey for his alleged derogatory remarks against the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India, while affirming the value of judicial review and freedom of speech within constitutional bounds. The Court observed that although the remarks were reckless and scandalous, the judiciary’s strength does not lie in silencing such speech but in maintaining public confidence through transparency and accountability.
A petition was filed under Article 32 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India, seeking action against Nishikant Dubey for alleged contempt of court. The petitioner claimed that the respondent had made inflammatory and scandalising statements blaming the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court for civil unrest in India, particularly in the context of hearings concerning the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The petitioner also sought directions for filing of an FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and an advisory from the Ministry of Home Affairs to state governments to prevent provocative speeches.
The petitioner contended that the statements made by the respondent amounted to criminal contempt of court as they were not mere criticisms but deliberate attempts to malign the judiciary. The petition emphasised the respondent’s language, which allegedly accused the Chief Justice of India of inciting civil and religious wars in the country. Such statements, according to the petitioner, were likely to interfere with the due course of justice and lower the dignity of the institution.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the remarks made by the respondent were indeed scandalous and had the tendency to lower the authority of the Court. The Bench noted, "The statements made reflect the clear intent to impute motives to the Bench itself by naming the Chief Justice of India as 'responsible for all the civil wars happening in India' and 'in order to incite religious wars in this country, it is only and only the Supreme Court that is responsible'."
However, the Court emphasised that it was not inclined to invoke contempt jurisdiction in this case. The Court reasoned, "Courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements... judges are judicious, their valour non-violent and their wisdom springs into action when played upon by a volley of values, the least of which is personal protection."
The Court reiterated that criticism of judicial decisions is permissible under Article 19(1)(a) but should not cross the line into willful contempt. While asserting the judiciary's resilience, it also reminded that, "Any attempt to spread communal hatred or indulge in hate speech must be dealt with an iron hand... it leads to loss of dignity and self-worth of the targeted group members, contributes to disharmony, and erodes tolerance."
The Bench reaffirmed the foundational role of judicial review in a constitutional democracy and clarified, "To deny the power of judicial review to the courts would be to rewrite and negate the Constitution... the judiciary’s legitimacy and credibility are rooted in public trust."
Concluding that the remarks were ill-considered but choosing not to exercise its contempt jurisdiction, the Top Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court stressed that while judicial institutions must be protected from deliberate attacks, they must also show restraint and confidence in their institutional strength. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
Picture Source :
