The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking contempt proceedings against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey for his remarks on the judiciary and Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna.
The PIL, filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari, urged the apex court to take suo motu cognisance of Dubey’s statements made during an interview with news agency ANI, where he reportedly blamed CJI Khanna for “all civil wars in the country.”
The remark came after a CJI-led bench expressed concerns over the recently amended Waqf Act, suggesting a potential stay on its implementation.
Despite the court’s refusal to admit the PIL, a Bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar said it would issue a short, reasoned order explaining its decision.
“We will not be entertaining it but we will give a short order. We will give some reasons,” said CJI Khanna.
Advocate Vishal Tiwari argued that the remarks were not just critical but “derogatory” and amounted to an attack on the dignity of the judiciary. He also referred to past instances when the court had taken cognisance of similar conduct, particularly in the Delhi Judicial Services matter.
“The dignity of the institution has to be protected. It cannot go like this,” he submitted.
The plea claimed that Dubey’s statements were punishable under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as well as Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It further highlighted a growing trend among political leaders to target judges and judicial institutions with inflammatory rhetoric, which poses a threat to judicial independence and public trust.
Interestingly, this is not the only contempt petition pending against Dubey. Another plea regarding the same interview is currently before the apex court, raising similar allegations.
While the Court appeared firm on not initiating contempt proceedings at this stage, its move to pass a brief order indicates that it may still address the larger concern of preserving institutional integrity without taking punitive action. This development comes amid rising tensions between the judiciary and political leaders, with recent cases sparking debate over the limits of free speech, judicial criticism, and institutional respect.
