New Delhi, Apr 22 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed that a plea seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament Nishikant Dubey, for his controversial remarks targeting the apex court and Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, be listed for hearing next week.
A Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih passed the direction after the matter was mentioned by a lawyer seeking urgent listing of the contempt plea.
The lawyer informed the court that despite having approached the Attorney General for India for mandatory consent under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, there had been no response.
"The remarks have gone viral. Mr. Dubey has stated that the CJI is responsible for civil wars in the country. There is still no reply from the Attorney General regarding consent to initiate contempt proceedings," the lawyer submitted before the Bench.
Taking note of the submission, Justice Gavai directed, “List it next week.”
The same plea had been mentioned on Monday before the same Bench, at which time the court had advised the lawyer to first establish a prima facie case before the Attorney General. “Make a case before the AG. He will give permission,” Justice Gavai had remarked then.
Under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a private individual can initiate contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court only after obtaining written consent from the Attorney General or the Solicitor General of India.
The remarks in question were made by MP Nishikant Dubey in a recent interview with a News Agency, where he claimed that CJI Sanjiv Khanna was responsible “for all civil wars in the country.”
The comments have sparked outrage among sections of the legal fraternity, with several lawyers writing to the Attorney General seeking permission to initiate contempt proceedings against Dubey.
The timing of the remarks is significant, coming amidst increasing criticism of the judiciary by political leaders.
Some BJP members have accused the Supreme Court of stepping beyond its jurisdiction, alleging that it often indulges in “judicial overreach” by issuing directions that amount to law-making or executive intervention.
Dubey’s statement came shortly after the Supreme Court entertained petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act, following which the Union Government agreed in court to not implement certain contentious provisions of the legislation. This judicial intervention drew ire from some political quarters.
Earlier, Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had also raised concerns about the functioning of the judiciary, stating that judges were not accountable and implying that judicial rulings were beyond the purview of legal scrutiny.
The Supreme Court will now take up the matter next week, where it may assess whether a case for contempt is made out, pending the Attorney General’s nod.
UNI SNG CS