New Delhi: The Supreme Court condemned BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s remarks and the chief justice of India, saying they tend to be “scandal” and reduce the authority of Apex Court.
“At the same time, we think the court is not as fragile as the flowers withered and wilted under such ridiculous statements,” said the judges of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar.
Dubey launched a broad lawsuit against the WAQF Act, saying () the Supreme Court is bringing the country to anarchy and that “India Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna is responsible for the civil war in the country”.
The bench on May 5 heard a call for a lawsuit against Dolby’s remarks and said they had heard a petition against the revised WAQF law.
Although the bench rejected the request, it provided harsh remarks on BJP MPs on Thursday.
After review, the bench said that “there is no doubt that “Dolby’s Discourse” tends to scandal and reduce the authority of India’s Supreme Court, even if it does not interfere or tends to interfere with judicial proceedings filed in the court”.
The bench added: “We believe that these comments are highly irresponsible and reflect the attention that has been drawn by making lawsuits on the Supreme Court and Supreme Court judges of India.”
The judge pointed out that these remarks tend to interfere with and hinder judicial administration.
It said the statements reflect a clear intention to name the CJI “responsible for all civil wars that took place in India” and “in order to incite religious wars in the country, it is only the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court in charge”.
The court added that the legislator’s remarks showed his ignorance of the role of the Constitutional Court and the obligations and obligations conferred under the Constitution.
The order said: “We believe that such a ridiculous remark does not believe in the confidence and credibility of the court in the eyes of the court in the public, although it is said, without a doubt, a desire and intentional attempt to do so.”
He wrote down the order of the bench, and although CJI did not entertain the petition, he made it clear that “any attempt to spread public hatred” or indulge in “hate speech must be handled with iron hand.”
