BJP MP Questions Supreme Court's Role in Lawmaking
In a politically charged statement, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey alleged that the Supreme Court of India is “inciting religious wars” and overstepping its constitutional mandate by interfering in legislative matters. Dubey questioned whether the Parliament should remain operational if the judiciary continues to dictate legal directives, suggesting that the top court has exceeded its jurisdiction.
Context: Remarks Amid Waqf Amendment Act Hearing
The remarks came in the backdrop of ongoing Supreme Court hearings on the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The apex court had earlier suggested it might issue interim orders regarding contentious provisions, including the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards and the authority of collectors in waqf property disputes.
Dubey's Remarks and Legal References
Citing Articles 141 and 368 of the Constitution, Dubey emphasized the separation of powers, asserting that while the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret laws, only Parliament has the right to enact them. He further referred to the decriminalisation of homosexuality under Article 377, criticizing the judiciary for acting independently of societal and religious norms.
Dubey also questioned the judiciary’s scrutiny over matters like Ram Mandir, Gyanvapi, and Krishna Janmabhoomi, alleging selective application of legal scrutiny. He accused the judiciary of trying to "rewrite history" and pushing the country toward “anarchy.”
BJP Distances Itself from Remarks
In response to the backlash, BJP National President JP Nadda issued a public statement disassociating the party from Dubey’s comments. He stated that the BJP "completely rejects" such statements and reiterated the party's respect for the judiciary. Nadda clarified that the comments were personal opinions of the MPs and not the official party stance.
Congress and Other Opposition Parties Respond
Congress leaders Manickam Tagore and Imran Masood criticized Dubey’s remarks, terming them defamatory and unacceptable. Tagore urged the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognizance, stating Dubey’s comments represented a pattern of undermining constitutional institutions.
Vice President Dhankhar Also Questions Judiciary’s Reach
Echoing similar sentiments, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar raised concerns over the judiciary’s application of Article 142, calling it a “nuclear missile” against democratic structures. He proposed amending Article 145(3) to address concerns around constitutional interpretation by smaller benches.
Recent Apex Court Ruling in Tamil Nadu Bill Dispute
The controversy intensified after the Supreme Court ruled that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s act of reserving 10 state bills for presidential assent was illegal. The court asserted that the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the State Legislature. It ruled that the bills are deemed valid from the date they were reintroduced and passed again by the Assembly.
Other Remarks from BJP Leaders
BJP MP Dinesh Sharma supported Dubey’s stance, stating that “the President is supreme” and cannot be challenged, reinforcing the idea that judicial interventions into legislative processes undermine constitutional balance.
Political and Constitutional Debate Deepens
The remarks and reactions underscore the growing tension between the legislative and judicial branches. With the Supreme Court continuing to adjudicate on crucial matters of public policy, including religious rights, appointments, and executive conduct, the lines between interpretation and intervention remain under intense scrutiny.
Conclusion
The unfolding discourse raises vital questions on the separation of powers, judicial review, and parliamentary sovereignty. As the judiciary hears more challenges related to legislative enactments, the friction between constitutional roles of the executive, legislature, and judiciary is likely to remain a focal point of national debate.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment