The Supreme Court on Monday told a lawyer that its permission was not required for filing a contempt petition against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, who on Saturday made contentious remarks against the judiciary, including Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

“See, if you want, you can file it. For filing, you don’t need our permission. You can make out a case before the attorney-general. He will give you permission,” Justice B.R. Gavai, heading a bench, told the advocate when he sought permission to file a contempt petition against Dubey.

The bench, which included Justice George Augustine Masih, made the oral observation after counsel Anas Tanveer sought permission to file a contempt petition against Dubey over the remarks.

Tanveer had also written a letter to attorney-general R. Venkataramani seeking permission to file a contempt plea against Dubey. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, if a private individual seeks to prosecute someone for contempt of the Supreme Court, a sanction from the attorney-general is mandatory. However, under Article
129, the Supreme Court also has extraordinary powers to punish any person for contempt of the top court.

Apart from Tanveer, advocates Brajesh Singh and Shiv Kumar Tripathi have filed separate applications to the attorney-general seeking permission to initiate a contempt case against the BJP lawmaker.

Advocate Singh has also urged the attorney-general to grant him permission for a contempt prosecution of Bengal BJP MLA Agnimitra Paul for her alleged criticism of the Supreme Court and reported endorsement of Dubey’s remark.

Singh alleged that both the BJP lawmakers had made “scandalous” remarks, “lowering the image of the judiciary” in the eyes of the public.

Dubey had drawn flak from the legal fraternity and the Opposition for his remarks to the media that the “Chief Justice of India is responsible for the civil war in the country”, and “Parliament and state legislatures should be closed down” if the Supreme Court were to make laws on issues which according to him are in the domain of the legislature.

Dubey made the remarks in the context of last week’s Supreme Court decision to stay certain portions of the recently amended waqf act, which, among other things, sought the inclusion of non-Muslims in the central waqf council and state waqf boards. Besides, it gave absolute powers to the district collectors to determine and declare any waqf property as non-waqf property.