Supreme Court Declines Contempt Action Against MP for 'Scandalous' Remarks, Emphasizes Judicial Strength and Warns on Hate Speech

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India, on May 5, 2025, dismissed a writ petition seeking suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Nishikant Dubey , a Member of Parliament, for allegedly making "deliberate and scandalizing remarks" against the apex court and the Chief Justice of India. The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar , while acknowledging the remarks as "highly irresponsible" and tending to "scandalize and lower the authority of the Supreme Court," ultimately refrained from initiating contempt action, underscoring the judiciary's resilience and the discretionary nature of contempt powers.

The Court, however, issued a stern warning against hate speech, stating that any attempt to spread communal hatred must be "dealt with an iron hand."

Case Background and Petitioner's Pleas

The writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 466/2025) was filed by Vishal Tiwari under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought three primary reliefs: 1. Initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Respondent No. 4, Nishikant Dubey . 2. A direction to the Union of India (Ministry of Home Affairs) to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) against Dubey under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 . 3. A direction to the Union of India (Ministry of Home Affairs) to issue an advisory to all Chief Secretaries to curb hate and provocative speeches by political parties and their leaders, particularly concerning the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, and its ongoing hearing before the Court.

The Bench noted that while it would not normally hear such a matter, it proceeded to dispose of the writ petition with observations as the judges had previously heard the related Waqf matter.

Court's Assessment of the Remarks

The Supreme Court examined the content of the assertions made by Mr. Dubey . It found that the statements "no doubt tend to scandalize and lower the authority of the Supreme Court of India, if not interfere or tend to interfere with the judicial proceedings pending before this Court, and have the tendency to interfere and obstruct the administration of justice."

The judgment highlighted specific remarks attributed to Dubey , including accusing the Chief Justice of India of being "responsible for all the civil wars happening in India" and claiming that "in order to incite religious wars in this country, it is only and only the Supreme Court that is responsible." The Court flatly stated, "There is no ‘civil war’ in India."

Describing the comments as "highly irresponsible," the Bench observed that they "reflect a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court." Furthermore, the statements were deemed to "show ignorance about the role of the constitutional courts and the duties and obligations bestowed on them under the Constitution."

Rationale for Judicial Restraint: "Courts Are Not as Fragile as Flowers"

Despite finding the remarks objectionable, the Court exercised its discretion to not initiate contempt proceedings. The judgment emphasized the strength and resilience of the judicial institution: > "At the same time, we are of the firm opinion that courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. We do not believe that the confidence in and credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such absurd statements, though it can be said without the shadow of doubt that there is a desire and deliberate attempt to do so."

The Court invoked the principles laid down in In Re S. Mulgaokar (1978) 3 SCC 339 , noting that while the judiciary is not immune from criticism, distorted or grossly misstated criticism designed to lower judicial respect should not be ignored. However, it reiterated that the power to initiate contempt is discretionary. > "Every commission of contempt need not erupt in an indignant committal or levy of punishment, however deserving it may actually be. It is so because judges are judicious, their valour non-violent and their wisdom springs into action when played upon by a volley of values, the least of which is personal protection."

The Court further stated that "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."

Upholding Judicial Review and Constitutional Supremacy

The judgment took the opportunity to reaffirm the vital role of judicial review in a constitutional democracy. "It is the Constitution that is higher than all of us," the Bench stated, emphasizing that the power of judicial review, conferred by Articles 32 and 226, is a cornerstone of democracy and part of the system of checks and balances. > "To deny the power of judicial review to the courts would be to rewrite and negate the Constitution... Judicial decisions are made in accordance with legal principles and not in keeping with political, religious or community considerations."

The Court highlighted the transparency and accountability inherent in the judicial process, including open court arguments, reasoned judgments, and avenues for appeal and review.

Stern Warning on Hate Speech

While dismissing the contempt plea, the Supreme Court issued a strong condemnation of hate speech: > "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... Any attempt to cause alienation or humiliation of the targeted group is a criminal offence and must be dealt with accordingly."

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, refraining from initiating contempt proceedings against Nishikant Dubey . However, it used the occasion to underscore the judiciary's inherent strength, the principles of judicial review, and its unwavering stance against hate speech. All pending applications were also disposed of.