Supreme Court rebukes BJP MP Nishikant Dubey over anti-judiciary remarks

The Supreme Court of India has rebuked BJP MP Nishikant Dubey for his remarks accusing Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna of being responsible for a civil war, calling the remark highly irresponsible and reflective of a penchant for attracting attention.

However, the top court refuses to initiate contempt proceedings, adding that courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither under such ludicrous statements and said: 

“The statements show ignorance about the role of the constitutional courts and the duties and obligations bestowed on them under the Constitution.”

Passing a short order, the CJI explained: 

“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 clause (a) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.”

“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 order read.

ALSO READ | Supreme Court rebukes BJP MP Nishikant Dubey over anti-judiciary remarks

Stressing that there was no need to exercise the power of contempt, the order firmly stated: 

“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 top court also reiterated that the Constitution was supreme and declared: 

“Each branch of the State in a democracy, be it the legislature, executive or the judiciary, especially in a constitutional democracy, acts 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 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.”

“We make it clear 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 order further noted.

On the issue of accountability, the top court said that “the 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,” it added.

“Judicial decisions are made in accordance with legal principles, and not in keeping with political, religious or community considerations. 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,” the bench concluded.

India