In a blistering response laced with restraint, the Supreme Court dismantled BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s incendiary comments against the judiciary and the Chief Justice of India—without lifting the gavel on punishment. Describing Dubey’s remarks as “highly irresponsible” and “dripping with ignorance,” the Court signaled it would not be baited into dramatics.
A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, joined by Justice Sanjay Kumar, called out the statements as scandalous and deliberately provocative—but chose the path of judicial poise over punitive action.
Dubey, stoking flames around the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, accused the Supreme Court of inciting religious conflict and absurdly claimed the CJI was “responsible for all civil wars in India.” The Court didn’t flinch.
“There is no civil war in India,” the bench stated bluntly, adding that courts are not “fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements.”
The PIL, filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari, had sought contempt proceedings and FIRs against Dubey and others for hate speech. While the Court acknowledged the corrosive nature of the MP’s tirade, it declined to launch contempt action, saying the public’s confidence in the judiciary is built on sturdier ground than the whims of political rhetoric.
“The comments reflect a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and its judges,” the Court observed. “They also betray a glaring ignorance of the role of Constitutional courts.”
Still, the judges chose not to wield contempt powers. “Not every contemptuous statement must end in punishment,” the bench said, invoking judicial restraint as a virtue. “Our valour is non-violent, our wisdom guided by values—not vanity.”
While letting Dubey’s statements slide under contempt laws, the Court drew a hard line on hate speech. It warned that incitement to communal hatred must be “dealt with an iron hand,” and declared that language which humiliates and alienates communities “cannot be tolerated in any civilised society.”
The message was unmistakable: the Supreme Court will not tremble under reckless political grandstanding—but neither will it blink at threats to social harmony.
