The Supreme Court on Monday outrightly refused to entertain a writ petition seeking contempt proceedings against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey.
The petition alleged that Mr. Dubey’s recent comments, which were critical of the Court and its Chief Justice, amounted to scandalizing and contemptuous statements.
A two-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna alongside Justice Sanjay Kumar, made their position clear at the outset: “We will pass a short order… but we will not entertain it.”
Petitioner’s Arguments On Record
Advocate Vishal Tiwari, who represented himself before the bench, urged the Court to uphold its own dignity. He argued that allowing disparaging remarks to go unchallenged would tarnish the institution’s reputation. He emphasized:
“…it is for the first time that… at least the dignity of this institution shall remain. It shall not go as if we are giving a clean chit.”
Tiwari further cautioned that beyond scandalizing the Court, Mr. Dubey’s words were both “hateful and provocative,” and urged the judiciary to invoke existing laws to curb such attacks:
“Apart from this scandalising statement, it is also hateful and provocative. The law is there, at least… We have to stop it…”
Court’s Response
While the Court refused to convert the petition into a full-fledged contempt proceeding, it assured Mr. Tiwari that the final order would articulate the bench’s views on the matter. “We will be passing a short order,” the Chief Justice affirmed, “but we will not entertain… but we will be expressing our views…” This signals the Court’s intent to formally record its stance on attacks against judicial authority, even as it declined to pursue contempt charges in this instance.
Allegations Of Undermining The Judiciary
The controversy erupted after Mr. Dubey publicly criticized the Supreme Court, alleging it was “leading the country towards anarchy.” He went further to accuse Chief Justice Khanna of being responsible for “civil wars” threatening to break out across India. These remarks prompted widespread concern among legal circles about the erosion of judicial respect.
Lawyers’ Collective Reproach
Shortly after Mr. Dubey’s statement, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) unanimously condemned his comments. Their resolution declared:
“Such remarks are not only factually baseless and deeply irresponsible, but they also amount to a direct and unwarranted attack on the independence, dignity, and majesty of our country’s highest Constitutional Court. These statements are defamatory in nature and seek to lower the judiciary’s authority in the eyes of the public.”
They underscored that while dissent and critique of judicial decisions are permissible, they must remain within the bounds of “dignity, constitutional decorum, and legal propriety.”
Upholding Judicial Independence
Court’s brief order—though not entertaining a formal contempt petition—reinforces a vital principle: the judiciary must remain above reproach and be safeguarded from baseless public disparagement. As Chief Justice Khanna and Justice Kumar prepare their concise pronouncement, the message is clear: courts will not countenance unwarranted attacks on their independence, even if they choose a measured response over immediate contempt action.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
