SC raps BJP Nishikant Dubey for 'scandalous' remarks on judiciary, CJI; debunks the claim of parliamentary supremacy

Rapping BJP MP Nishikant Dubey for his “highly irresponsible” comments against it and Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, the Supreme Court has said the confidence in and credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such absurd statements.

However, a Bench of CJI Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar refrained from taking any action against Dubey, saying, “Courts believe in values like free press, fair trial, judicial fearlessness and community confidence.”

It said, “Thus, courts need not protect their verdicts and decisions by taking recourse to the power of contempt. Surely, courts and judges have shoulders broad enough and an implicit trust that the people would perceive and recognize when criticism or critique is biased, scandalous and ill-intentioned.”

The top court asserted that “The judiciary’s legitimacy and credibility are rooted in public trust and are maintained through fair, impartial and transparent decision-making.”

The Bench also debunked the claim of parliamentary supremacy, saying, “It is the Constitution that is higher than all of us.”

The Bench said, “Each branch of the State in a democracy, be it the legislature, executive or the judiciary, especially in a constitutional democracy, acts within the framework of the Constitution. It is the Constitution that is higher than all of us. It is the Constitution which imposes limits and restrictions on the powers vested in the three organs."

“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,” it added.

“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 cornerstones of democracy. This power is conferred in express terms by Articles 32 and 226 by the framers of the Constitution and hinges on the system of checks and balances,” the Bench asserted.

The Bench said, “We make it clear that any attempt to spread communal hatred or indulge in hate speech 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.

On May 5, the Bench had refused to entertain advocate Vishal Tiwari’s petition seeking contempt action against the BJP MP but said it will pass an order on the issue.

On Thursday, it said, “In the course of dispensation of justice, courts draw inspiration from consecrated principles. The judiciary, as an institution, is accountable to the people through various mechanisms. Arguments take place in open court. Decisions and judgments are reasoned. Judicial procedure ensures transparency and accountability.

“Judgments are put to scrutiny and critique. Decisions are debated and if required, corrected by exercise of right of appeal, review, in curative jurisdiction and by reference to a larger bench. The judiciary’s legitimacy and credibility are rooted in public trust and are maintained through fair, impartial and transparent decision-making,” it added.

“We believe that the general public does know the relationship amongst the three wings of the government and their different roles. They are aware of the function and the role of the judiciary, which is to judicially review the actions of the other branches and to evaluate whether the other branches are acting lawfully under the Constitution. Judicial decisions are made in accordance with legal principles and not in keeping with political, religious or community considerations,” it said.

“When citizens approach the court praying for exercise of the power of judicial review, they do so in furtherance of their fundamental and/or legal rights. The court’s consideration of such a prayer is the fulfilment of its constitutional duty,” the Bench noted.