Did BJP MP Nishikant Dubey commit criminal contempt of court?

Following huge political backlash against the BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s belligerent comment, the BJP interim president J.P. Nadda on Saturday had dismissed it as his ‘personal comment’ and added that the party had warned him against making such statements.

The clarification appeared lame and satisfied nobody. BJP supporters rallied behind the MP and on social media claimed that Dubey had articulated the views of a majority of them. The opposition too remained sceptical and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra tweeted, ‘Remember, a pitbull does nothing without its master’s command’.

In a letter sent to the Attorney General of India, an Advocate on Record (AOR) Anas Tanveer quoted the BJP MP saying that the "Supreme Court is taking the country towards anarchy" and that "Chief Justice of India Sanijv Khanna is responsible for the civil wars taking place in the country".

In video comments given to news agency ANI on Saturday, 19 April 2025, Nishikant Dubey said, “...Supreme Court is responsible for inciting religious wars in the country. The Supreme 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...”.

He added, "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 the Parliament?... How did you make a new law? In which law is it written that the President has to take a decision within three months? This means that you want to take this country towards anarchy. When the Parliament sits, there will be a detailed discussion on this..."

The comments apparently referred to recent Supreme Court judgments laying down timelines for the President and Governors to act on Bill referred to them. It has also been alleged that the BJP MP made communally polarising statements in the context of the Supreme Court's intervention in the petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act. Dubey's comments are "deeply derogatory" and "dangerously provocative", says the letter to the AG and adds, "he recklessly attributes popular unrest to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, thus scandalising the highest judicial office in the country and attempting to provoke public dissent, outrage and possible unrest".

Criminal Defamation of the Court is initiated only after the Attorney General or the Advocate General in a state agrees and gives his consent. Any publication, speech, representation and communication of any kind that is deemed to scandalise the court, lower the authority of the court or which interferes with a court proceeding or administration of justice may attract criminal contempt of court. The punishment prescribed is generally a simple imprisonment up to six months or a fine, both liable to be waived in case an apology is tendered.

Dubey, known for making irresponsible statements, remains belligerent though. On Sunday, 20 April, he reacted to former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi who had tweeted on X his opinion on the controversial Waqf Act. “Waqf Act is undoubtedly a blatantly sinister/evil plan of the government to grab Muslim lands. I am sure SC will call it out. Misinformation by the mischievous propaganda machine has done its job well.”

Dubey made the insulting comment that Quraishi was a ‘Muslim Commissioner’ and went on to accuse him of enrolling Muslim infiltrators from Bangladesh as voters in the electoral rolls in Jharkhand.

In November, 2020 the then Attorney General had given his consent to initiate criminal contempt of court against comedian Kunal Kamra for tweeting that the Supreme Court had become a ‘supreme joke’ after the apex court granted interim bail to TV anchor Arnab Goswami hours after he was arrested in an abetment to suicide case.

The then AG K.K. Venugopal in his opinion said, "I find that today people believe that they can boldly and brazenly condemn the Supreme Court of India and its judges by exercising what they believe is their freedom of speech. But under the Constitution, the freedom of speech is subject to the law of contempt and I believe that it is time that people understand that attacking the Supreme Court of India unjustifiedly and brazenly will attract punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1972."