‘Not Fragile As Flowers To Wilt Under Ludicrous Statements’, SC On Nishikant Dubey's Remarks On Judiciary And CJI

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under ludicrous statements, while censuring BJP MP Nishikant Dubey for his remarks against it and the Chief Justice of India.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar said it has examined the contents of the assertions made by Dubey, which “no doubt tends to scandalise and lower the authority of the Supreme Court of India, if not interfere or tend to interfere with the judicial proceedings pending before this court, and have the tendency to interfere and obstruct the administration of justice”.

Dubey had launched a broadside against the apex court for hearing pleas against the Waqf Act, saying “(the) Supreme Court is taking the country towards anarchy” and that “Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna is responsible for the civil wars taking place in the country”.

On May 5, the apex court heard a plea for contempt action against Dubey over his remarks and said they were the ones who heard the petitions against the amended Waqf law. The bench decided to dismiss the petition but, in its order, wrote scathing remarks against the BJP MP.

The bench, which was uploaded today, said the statements reflect the clear intent to impute motives to the bench itself by naming the Chief Justice of India as “responsible for all the civil wars happening in India” and “in order to incite religious wars in this country, it is only and only the Supreme Court that is responsible”.

The apex court said, “In our opinion, the comments were highly irresponsible and reflects a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court”.

The bench said this apart, the statements show ignorance about the role of the constitutional courts and the duties and obligations bestowed on them under the Constitution. “At the same time, we are of the firm opinion 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”, said the bench, adding that it refrains from taking any action.

The bench said this court observed that the judiciary is not immune from criticism, but when criticism is an obvious distortion or a gross misstatement, which is made in a manner designed to lower the respect of the judiciary and destroy public confidence, it should not be ignored. “However, the power to initiate contempt is discretionary in its unsheathed exercise. Every commission of contempt need not erupt in an indignant committal or levy of punishment, however deserving it may actually be”, noted the bench.

The bench said it is so because judges are judicious, their valour non-violent and their wisdom springs into action when played upon by a volley of values, the least of which is personal protection. “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”, said the apex court, in its order.

The bench said 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 said.

“While we are not entertaining the present writ petition, 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”, said the bench.

The plea was filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari seeking initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Dubey, for having made deliberate and scandalising remarks against the Supreme Court of India and the Chief Justice of India; for a direction to the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, to lodge a First Information Report under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.