Supreme Court: While considering the instant petition under Article 32 read with Article 129 of the Constitution seeking initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, for making deliberate and scandalizing remarks against the Supreme Court of India and the Chief Justice of India; the Division Bench of Sanjiv Khanna, CJ., and Sanjay Kumar J., declined to entertain the petition. However, the Court opined that the comments by the BJP MP 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 further opined 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”.
Background:
Nishikant Dubey is a Member of Parliament from Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP). He made certain statements which included naming the Chief Justice of India as “responsible for all the civil wars happening in India”. He had further said that “in order to incite religious wars in this country, it is only and only the Supreme Court that is responsible”.
Court’s Assessment:
While perusing the matter and the contentions raised by the parties, the Court firstly stated that normally, this Bench i.e. CJI Khanna and Kumar, J., would not have heard this matter; but as they are not inclined to issue notice and the Waqf matter was heard by the Judges in this Bench itself; they would dispose of the writ petition with some observations and, accordingly, proceeded to consider the issue.
The Court said that judicial pronouncements result in an order or a decision which may aggrieve a party or sometimes a section of the public. Critical analysis and objective criticism of an order’s reasoning or even its outcome is protected under the fundamental right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
However, the power of criminal contempt is exercised by courts when publication by words, spoken or written, by signs, or by visible representation or otherwise, in terms of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is with the intent to scandalize or lower the authority of the courts; or tends to scandalize or lower such authority; prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings; or interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner. Exercise of the power of contempt, nevertheless, is discretionary.
Examining the impugned statements made by the BJP MP, the Court pointed out that the statements which no doubt tend to scandalize and lower the authority of the Supreme Court of India, if not interfere or tend to interfere with the judicial proceedings pending before the Court, and have the tendency to interfere and obstruct the administration of justice. The Court stated that Sections 3 and 4 of the 1971 Act carve out exceptions which, prima facie, are not attracted. There is no ‘civil war’ in India.
Refraining from taking any action against the BJP MP, the Bench said that 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 further clarified that each branch of the State in a democracy; be it the legislature, executive or the judiciary, especially in a constitutional democracy; and acts within the framework of the Constitution. The power of judicial review is conferred by the Constitution on the judiciary. Statutes are subject to judicial review to test their constitutionality as well as for judicial interpretation. Therefore, when the constitutional courts exercise their power of judicial review, they act within the framework of the Constitution.
“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 Court observed that judiciary, as an institution, is accountable to the people through various mechanisms. Arguments take place in open court. Decisions and judgments are reasoned. Judicial procedure ensures transparency and accountability. Judgments are put to scrutiny and critique. Decisions are debated and if required, corrected by exercise of right of appeal, review, in curative jurisdiction and by reference to a larger bench.
“The judiciary’s legitimacy and credibility are rooted in public trust and are maintained through fair, impartial and transparent decision-making”.
To deny the power of judicial review to the courts would be to rewrite and negate the Constitution, as the power of judicial review is one of the cornerstones of democracy. “We believe that the general public does know the relationship amongst the three wings of the Government and their different roles. They are aware of the function and the role of the judiciary, which is to judicially review the actions of the other branches and to evaluate whether the other branches are acting lawfully under the Constitution”.
“When citizens approach the court praying for exercise of the power of judicial review, they do so in furtherance of their fundamental and/or legal rights. The court’s consideration of such a prayer is the fulfilment of its constitutional duty”.
While dismissing the petition, the Court clarified 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.
[Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1057, decided on 5-5-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s): Petitioner-in-person
Buy Constitution of India HERE
