The Supreme Court on Thursday rebuked Bharatiya Janata Party’s Lok Sabha member Nishikant Dubey for his remarks against the top court and its judges, terming them as “highly irresponsible” and reflecting “a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions.”

A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, while refusing to entertain a plea seeking suo motu contempt proceedings against Dubey, said that his comments displayed a complete “ignorance about the role of constitutional courts” and the obligations imposed on them under the Constitution.

Advertisement

“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,” the bench said in its order.

The top court, however, underlined that courts are not fragile and public confidence in the judiciary cannot be shaken by “such absurd statements.”

“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 bench observed.

The top court also emphasized that every contemptuous statement does not merit punishment, stating, “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.”

Dubey had reportedly accused the Supreme Court of “taking the country towards anarchy” and alleged that Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna was “responsible for the civil wars taking place in the country.”

The bench reiterated that while hate speech must be dealt with an “iron hand”, mere personal attacks on courts must be weighed carefully.

“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,” the top court said.

The petition by advocate Vishal Tiwari had sought action against hate speeches by political leaders in the context of debates surrounding the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

However, the bench clarified that the constitutional courts operate strictly within the bounds of the Constitution and judicial review is an inherent feature of India’s democratic structure.

“It is the Constitution that is higher than all of us. It is the Constitution which imposes limits and restrictions on the powers vested in the three organs. The power of judicial review is conferred by the Constitution on the judiciary,” the bench pointed out.

Dubey’s controversial remarks had come after the Supreme Court fixed timelines for the President and Governors to act on bills passed by state legislatures and intervened on the certain provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

Several lawyers had earlier written to the Attorney General of India R. Venkataramani seeking nod for the initiation of contempt proceedings against Dubey.

Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, private individuals can initiate contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court only with the consent of the Attorney General of India or the Solicitor General of India.

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar had also 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.