Last Updated:
BJP distanced itself from MPs Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma’s statements on the Supreme Court as JP Nadda emphasized respect for the judiciary and advised MPs to avoid such remarks.
BJP MP Nishikant Dubey addresses a press conference, in New Delhi. (IMAGE: PTI)
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) distanced itself from the statements made by BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma on the Supreme Court on Saturday.
“The statements made by BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma regarding the judiciary and the Chief Justice of India have no connection with the Bharatiya Janata Party. These are their personal remarks, and the BJP neither agrees with nor supports such statements. The party outrightly rejects them,” party chief JP Nadda said in a statement, originally published in Hindi, on X.
Four-term BJP MP Nishikant Dubey on Saturday launched a scathing attack on the Supreme Court and questioned its role in law-making.
He first made a terse post in Hindi on X and later, in remarks to PTI, accused the court of arrogating to itself Parliament’s legislative powers by striking down laws passed by the legislature and even giving directions to the President who, Dubey noted, is the appointing authority of Supreme Court judges.
“Kanoon yadi Supreme Court hi banayega to Sansad Bhavan bandh kar dena chahiye,” the BJP MP said on X. His comment came following the Centre’s assurance to the court that it would not be implementing some of the contentious provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act till the next day of hearing after the court raised questions over them.
“The Bharatiya Janata Party has always respected the judiciary and has willingly accepted its orders and suggestions. As a political party, we believe that the Supreme Court and all courts in the country are integral to our democracy and form a strong pillar for upholding the Constitution.”
“I have instructed both of them, and everyone, not to make such statements in the future,” he further added.
Dubey’s remarks came after the Centre told the Supreme Court it would hold off on implementing certain controversial provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, following the court’s sharp questions during a hearing on the matter.
The court is examining multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of the law, which was passed by Parliament earlier this month.
Taking aim at the court’s observations, Dubey questioned why it raised concerns over the “Waqf by use” clause without applying the same standard of scrutiny it has demanded in temple-related cases, including the Ram Mandir dispute, where documentary evidence was a key focus.
He cited Article 368 of the Constitution to argue that enacting laws is the sole domain of Parliament, while the Supreme Court’s role is to interpret them — not interfere with legislative decisions.
