“Our Shoulders Are Broad Enough”: Top Court On Contempt Plea Against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has dismissed the contempt petition filed against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey regarding the Supreme Court and Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna. The court said that our shoulders are broad and we do not want to consider the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey. The petition sought contempt proceedings against Dubey for making derogatory remarks on the Supreme Court and CJI Sanjiv Khanna.
During the hearing, the CJI said, “Our shoulders are strong, we do not want to consider the petition.” Petitioner lawyer Vishal Tiwari said that it is a question of the dignity of the court and the judges. In the petition, Vishal Tiwari had described Nishikant Dubey’s statement as insulting and condemnable to the court. On the arguments of the petitioner, the bench said, “We do not want to hear any argument or debate at the moment, but we will pass a short order.” The petitioner had demanded contempt proceedings against Dubey.
After recently hitting out at the Supreme Court over its order on the powers of the President and Governors, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey has now taken a dig at the petitioner who filed a contempt petition against him. “The dignity of the institution must be protected,” petitioner advocate Vishal Tiwari told a bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna. “Our shoulders are broad enough,” Chief Justice Khanna replied. Soon after the court’s remarks, Nishikant Dubey quoted a line from a popular Hindi film song – “Dil ke armaan aansuon mein beh gaye” – which roughly translates to ‘all hopes have been washed away in tears’ – to mock the petitioner.
In the petition filed by lawyer Vishal Tiwari, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s statement has been described as insulting and condemnable for the judiciary. Along with this, the petition has demanded to initiate contempt proceedings against him. Nishikant Dubey had commented on the Supreme Court after the Murshidabad violence .In fact, after the violence broke out in protest against the Waqf Amendment Act in Murshidabad district of West Bengal, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey had made a controversial comment on the Supreme Court. He had said, “If the Supreme Court makes the law, then the Parliament should be closed.”
The PIL also sought the use of powers under Article 129 of the Constitution to punish the BJP MP from Godda in Jharkhand for his “highly provocative, hateful and reprehensible” statements. Article 129 gives the apex court the power to punish for contempt of itself. The court said, “We will pass a short order. We will give some reasons. We will not go into it, but we will pass a short order.”
The MP, who often issues controversial statements, had said that the “Supreme Court is leading the country towards anarchy” and that it is “responsible for inciting religious wars in the country”. The remarks were strongly criticised by the opposition and several lawyers’ bodies, including the Supreme Court Bar Association. Even his own party distanced itself from his remarks and said it respects the judiciary.
JP Nadda said, “The Bharatiya Janata Party has nothing to do with the statements made by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey.” He said the party “completely rejects these statements.” The Top Court’s decision to set a deadline for taking a decision on the bills sent to the President of India was the major reason for Mr Dubey’s anger. While opposition parties hailed the court’s decision, the BJP MP made a scathing remark against the Supreme Court, saying that Parliament and state assemblies should be shut down if the apex court has to legislate. He reiterated the views of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who also strongly disagreed with the decision.
Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh criticised the remarks, alleging that people holding constitutional posts and BJP MPs were speaking against the Supreme Court to “weaken” the institution. Supreme Court judge Justice BR Gavai also reacted to the issue while considering a petition seeking an inquiry into the violence during anti-Waqf law protests in West Bengal. “As we are accused of encroaching upon parliamentary and executive functions,” he said, in an apparent reference to the derogatory remark on the judiciary.
