‘Irresponsible’: SC slams Dubey over remarks on judiciary, CJI

The Supreme Court that declined earlier this week, to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking contempt proceedings against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey for his remarks targeting Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and the judiciary, has said in its order that even though it refrained from initiating action, Dubey’s statements prima facie amounted to contempt.

A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar noted in the order made public on Thursday, that while Dubey’s comments had the potential to “scandalize and lower the authority” of the Supreme Court and reflected a clear intent to “impute motives” to the bench, the judiciary was not so fragile that it would be shaken by “ludicrous” statements.

“We have examined the contents of the assertions made by the respondent (Dubey) which no doubt tend to scandalize and lower the authority of the Supreme Court of India,” the court said. “In our opinion, the comments were highly irresponsible and reflect a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court. 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,” it said.

The PIL, filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari, urged the court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings under Article 129 of the Constitution and Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Tiwari had cited an interview given by Dubey to news agency ANI, in which he had accused CJI Khanna of being “responsible for all civil wars happening in the country.” Dubey made the comment soon after the Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the central Waqf (Amendment) Act.

The court was clear that while Dubey’s statements were “absurd” and indicative of a “deliberate attempt” to erode public confidence in the judiciary, not every contemptuous remark warrants prosecution. “Every commission of contempt need not erupt in an indignant committal or levy of punishment,” the bench said, adding that judicial wisdom demands restraint.

However, the court drew a clear line when it came to hate speech, asserting that any such attempts 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. Any attempt to cause alienation or humiliation of the targeted group is a criminal offence and must be dealt with accordingly,” the court said.

The court recorded that it was dismissing the PIL with these observations. However, another contempt plea against Dubey over the same issue is pending hearing before another bench of the court.

Dubey’s remarks in the interview also sparked widespread outrage within the legal fraternity. The Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association passed a resolution last month expressing “deep dismay” and condemning the MP’s comments. It termed Dubey’s comments an attack on the independence of the judiciary.

Several lawyers also wrote to Attorney General R Venkatramani seeking his consent to initiate contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. However, some of the lawyers said that they are yet to receive a response from the AG.