The Supreme Court on Monday told an advocate that he does not need its permission to file a contempt petition against BJP member Nishikant Dubey for his recent controversial remarks against the top court and CJI Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

A bench of Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih said the petitioner needs to get a sanction from the Attorney General in the matter.

Advertisement

The bench said this as the petitioner’s advocate referring to the recent media reports about Dubey’s comments sought court’s permission to file a contempt petition against him.

“You file it. For filing, you don’t require our permission,” Justice Gavai said.

Dubey has reportedly said that “ The Supreme Court is taking the country towards anarchy” and that “Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna is responsible for the civil wars taking place in the country”.

Some lawyers have also written letters to the Attorney General R Venkataramani, demanding initiation of contempt proceedings against Dubey for his remarks.

Letters were written by advocates Anas Tanwir, Shiv Kumar Tripathi and others seeking contempt of court proceedings against Dubey saying that his “grossly scandalous remarks aimed at lowering the dignity” of the top court.

Advocate Subhash Theekkadan – a lawyer from Kerala – sought to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, in light of a public statement by him which the lawyer said amounts to a “direct attack on the authority and dignity” of the Supreme Court.

As per the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a private individual can file a contempt of court petition in the Supreme Court only after obtaining the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.

The BJP MP had claimed the Supreme Court was taking the country towards anarchy.

On April 19, Nishikant Dubey had said that the Parliament and the State Assemblies should be shut if the top court is dictating laws and that Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna is “responsible for civil wars” in the country.

Last week, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar questioned the judiciary for setting a timeline for the President to decide whether or not to assent to state Bills referred to the President by a Governor.

Dhankhar further accused the Supreme Court of acting as a “super Parliament”and said it cannot fire a “nuclear missile” at democratic forces.