BJP MP Nishikant Dubey Sparks Row with Remark on Supreme Court and Parliament

BJP MP Nishikant Dubey stirred a major political storm on Saturday after questioning the judiciary’s role in law-making.

Referring to the ongoing Supreme Court hearing on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, Dubey remarked, “If the Supreme Court has to make laws, then Parliament should be shut down.”

His statement came as the court raised concerns over specific provisions in the Act, particularly the ‘Waqf by user’ clause. The Centre assured the court that those provisions would not be implemented until the next hearing on May 5.

BJP Distances Itself from MP’s Statement

Following the uproar, BJP national president JP Nadda clarified that Dubey’s remarks were personal and did not reflect the party’s stance.

Nadda stated, “Bharatiya Janata Party has always respected the judiciary and gladly accepted its orders and suggestions because, as a party, we believe that all the courts of the country, including the Supreme Court, are an integral part of our democracy and are the strong pillar of the protection of the Constitution.”

Nadda further said that Dubey and other party members, including Dinesh Sharma, were instructed not to make such comments again.

Dubey Accuses Supreme Court of Overstepping Powers

Dubey, a four-time MP from Godda, alleged that the judiciary was exceeding its constitutional authority. He claimed the court was overturning laws passed by Parliament and even issuing directions to the President, who appoints Supreme Court judges.

“How can you give direction to the appointing authority? The President appoints the Chief Justice of India. The Parliament makes the law of this country. You will dictate that Parliament?” he said.

Dubey also accused the court of “inciting religious wars” in the country and argued that if every matter is to be decided by the court, then there is no need for Parliament or state assemblies.

Criticism Over ‘Waqf by User’ and Past Judgements

He further questioned the court’s approach to the “Waqf by user” clause, stating that in previous cases like the Ram Mandir dispute, documentary evidence was required, but not in this case.

Dubey also referenced earlier Supreme Court decisions, such as the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the striking down of Section 66(A) of the IT Act, as instances of judicial overreach.

Reactions from Political Leaders and Legal Experts

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar also recently criticised judicial overreach, especially after the Supreme Court set a deadline for the President to act on pending bills.

Speaking to Rajya Sabha interns, Dhankhar questioned, “There is a directive to the President by a recent judgement. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country?”

Congress leader Salman Khurshid called Dubey’s comments unfortunate, saying, “It is a matter of great sadness if an MP questions the Supreme Court or any court.”

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh pointed out, “If the parliament makes a law, then the President gives it final approval… Suppose the Waqf bill is passed and the President does not sign it and keeps it, then will it be valid?”

BJP MP Dinesh Sharma added, “According to the Constitution of India, no one can direct the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, and the President has already given her assent to it.”

AAP Spokesperson Priyanka Kakkar demanded legal action, saying, “I hope that tomorrow only, the Supreme Court will initiate suo moto contempt proceedings against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and send him to jail.”

Legal Pushback and Contempt Proceedings

BJP Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra questioned the Supreme Court’s selectivity, stating, “On the Manipur issue, the Supreme Court took a suo motu cognisance, but we are seeing that several parts of West Bengal are burning, but the eyes of the Supreme Court are closed.”

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh claimed, “They are trying to weaken the Supreme Court. Constitutional functionaries, ministers, BJP MPs are speaking against the Supreme Court as it is upholding the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court, responding to a petitioner seeking contempt action against Dubey, said he must first get the Attorney-General’s consent. “So you file it. For filing, you don’t need our permission. You’ll need sanction from AG,” said Justice BR Gavai.

Calls for Criminal Contempt

Advocate Anas Tanwir, representing petitioners in the Waqf case, including Congress leader Mohammad Jawed, wrote to the Attorney-General seeking consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Dubey.

The letter stated that Dubey’s public comments were “grossly scandalous, misleading, and aimed at lowering the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court,” warning that they could incite communal distrust.

Separately, Advocate Narendra Mishra also wrote to the Chief Justice and all Supreme Court judges urging the court to act on its own, calling Dubey’s remarks a “deliberate attempt to intimidate the judiciary, incite public disorder, and delegitimize the institution entrusted with protecting the Constitution.”