The Supreme Court strongly deprecated the comments made by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey attacking the judiciary and the Chief Justice of India, terming them "highly irresponsible" and attention-seeking. The Court said that the comments showed his ignorance about the functioning of the Constitutional Courts. At the same time, the Court refrained from taking any action against him, saying that the public's confidence in the judiciary cannot be shaken by "such absurd comments."
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was dealing with a PIL filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari seeking suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Dubey and to register FIRs against hate speeches made by political leaders in the context of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025. Dubey made the controversial comments in the wake of the Supreme Court's intervention in the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025. He went to the extent of saying that CJI Sanjiv Khanna was "responsible for all the civil wars happening in India" that the "Supreme Court is only responsible for inciting religious wars in the country."
The bench observed that the statements have the tendency to scandalize and lower the authority of the Supreme Court of India and to obstruct the administration of justice by interfering with judicial proceeings. "In our opinion, the comments were highly irresponsible and reflect a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court. This apart, the statements show ignorance about the role of the constitutional courts and the duties and obligations bestowed on them under the Constitution," the Court said.
The Court said that the comments do not prima facie attract the exemptions under the Contempt of Courts Act. Also, there is no "civil war in India", the Court reminded. The Court however added : "At the same time, we are of the firm opinion that courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements.
We do not believe that the confidence in and credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such absurd statements, though it can be said without the shadow of doubt that there is a desire and deliberate attempt to do so.' The Court added that every contemptuous statement need not result in punishment because "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". "Courts believe in values like free press, fair trial, judicial fearlessness and community confidence.
Thus, courts need not protect their verdicts and decisions by taking recourse to the power of contempt. Surely, courts and judges have shoulders broad enough and an implicit trust that the people would perceive and recognize when criticism or critique is biased, scandalous and ill-intentioned," the Court observed. Hate speech cannot be tolerated Even while declining to entertain the petition, the Court stated that "any attempt to spread communal hatred or indulge in hate speech must be dealt with an iron hand."
"Hate speech cannot be tolerated as it leads to loss of dignity and self-worth of the targeted group members, contributes to disharmony amongst groups, and erodes tolerance and open-mindedness, which is a must for a multi-cultural society committed to the idea of equality. Any attempt to cause alienation or humiliation of the targeted group is a criminal offence and must be dealt with accordingly," the Court said. Also from the order – Constitution Is Higher Than All; Judicial Review A Constitutional Function : Supreme Court Debunks Parliamentary Supremacy Claim Case Title : Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 547 Click here to read the judgment
