The Supreme Court has held that any attempt to spread “communal hatred or indulge in hate speech must be dealt with an iron hand”, as it slammed BJP MP Nishikant Dubey for his comments on the Chief Justice of India and the top court.
Hearing a batch of petitions and cross-petitions over the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, a bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna had asked the Centre whether non-Hindus would be permitted in temple management boards, prompting Dubey to accuse him later of fomenting a “civil war” in the country. Dubey had also remarked that Parliament and state legislatures should be shut if the judiciary were to interfere in policy decisions.
Advocate Vishal Tiwari had moved a contempt petition against Dubey, alleging his remarks were scandalous and lowered the image of the judiciary.
A bench of CJI Khanna and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar, in a detailed order dated May 5, observed: “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.”
The court added: “Hate speech cannot be tolerated as it leads to loss of dignity and self-worth of the targeted group members, contributes to disharmony among 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. Recording the aforesaid, we dismiss the present writ petition.”
The bench said it had examined Dubey’s comments and felt that they were intended to scandalise and lower the authority of the Supreme Court, had tended to interfere, if not interfered, with the judicial proceedings pending before the top court, and had the tendency to obstruct the administration of justice.
“In our opinion, the comments were highly irresponsible and reflected a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and the judges of the Supreme Court,” the bench said.
It added that the BJP lawmaker’s statements showed ignorance about the role of the constitutional courts and the duties and obligations bestowed on them bythe Constitution.
Asserting that the Constitution is higher than the judiciary, legislature and the executive, the apex court said: “The power of judicial review is conferred by the Constitution on the judiciary. Statutes are subject to judicial review to test their constitutionality as well as for judicial interpretation. Therefore, when the constitutional courts exercise their power of judicial review, they act within the framework of the Constitution. To deny the power of judicial review to the courts would be to rewrite and negate the Constitution, as the power of judicial review is one of the cornerstonesof democracy….”