‘Parliament should shut down?’ BJP disowns Nishikant Dubey’s explosive remark on Supreme Court

BJP distances itself from Nishikant Dubey’s Supreme Court comments, says judiciary is ‘integral to democracy’

The Bharatiya Janata Party has officially distanced itself from controversial remarks made by its Member of Parliament Nishikant Dubey, who questioned the authority of the Supreme Court in a statement that drew sharp reactions across political and legal circles. Party president JP Nadda clarified that Dubey’s comments do not reflect the BJP’s stance, asserting that the party has “always respected the judiciary.”

In a post shared on X, Nadda said the party “completely rejects” the statements made by Dubey and another party leader, Dinesh Sharma, adding that he had instructed all party members not to make such remarks in the future. “The BJP has always accepted the Supreme Court’s orders and suggestions with humility,” Nadda wrote, stressing that the judiciary is a vital pillar of Indian democracy and a protector of the Constitution.

What did Nishikant Dubey say about the Supreme Court?

The controversy arose after Dubey reportedly criticised the Supreme Court for allegedly encroaching on the role of the legislature. In a statement that went viral, the BJP MP from Jharkhand questioned the need for Parliament if the apex court continues to issue directives akin to lawmaking. His remarks were widely perceived as undermining the authority of the judiciary, especially at a time when the Supreme Court is reviewing sensitive constitutional matters, including recent challenges to the Waqf (Amendment) Act.

Dinesh Sharma, another BJP leader, also made statements suggesting the supremacy of the President over the judiciary, adding to the backlash.

The remarks drew swift condemnation from various quarters, prompting the party leadership to move quickly to contain the damage and disassociate from the views expressed.

How did the BJP respond and why is the timing important?

Party president JP Nadda’s public rebuke of Dubey and Sharma came amid growing concern over the perception of legislative interference in judicial matters. Nadda’s statement aimed to reinforce the party’s position that it upholds the separation of powers and respects the judiciary’s independence.

The timing is crucial. The Supreme Court is currently hearing petitions challenging the constitutionality of amendments to the Waqf Act. The Centre has assured the Court that it will not proceed with certain provisions of the amended law, including ‘Waqf-by-user’ clauses, until the matter is resolved. The court had also expressed concern over the executive’s implementation of certain measures that were still under judicial review.

In this context, Dubey’s comments were seen as particularly provocative and potentially harmful to the ongoing legal process. Nadda’s intervention signals an attempt by the BJP to reinforce its institutional stance and defuse political tensions.

Opposition reactions and constitutional implications

Opposition leaders seized upon the controversy to criticise the BJP’s internal discipline and its commitment to democratic institutions. All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen chief Asaduddin Owaisi ridiculed Dubey’s understanding of constitutional law, suggesting the MP had misunderstood Article 142, which allows the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any matter.

Owaisi accused the BJP of fuelling constitutional instability and said such rhetoric could further erode public trust in institutions. Legal experts also warned that frequent political commentary against the judiciary risks damaging the careful balance of powers established under the Constitution.

The remarks triggered a broader debate about judicial independence, parliamentary supremacy, and the role of elected representatives in shaping public discourse around the Constitution. While criticism of judicial decisions is not unusual in a democracy, elected representatives are expected to maintain decorum and avoid statements that could undermine institutional integrity.

Broader political and institutional context

This episode follows a series of flashpoints between the executive and judiciary in recent months. From the selection of judges to the scope of judicial review, tensions have persisted over the delineation of powers. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly asserted its role as a constitutional authority tasked with safeguarding the fundamental rights of citizens.

The BJP’s distancing from Dubey’s remarks may be seen as an attempt to recalibrate its public messaging and affirm its respect for constitutional institutions. By promptly disowning the MP’s statements, the party appears intent on limiting potential damage and maintaining a narrative of institutional stability.

At a time when the judiciary is actively engaged in reviewing several high-stakes legislative initiatives, including those related to religious trusts, electoral reforms, and executive decisions, the BJP’s response is being closely watched for signals of its broader governance approach.

The BJP’s intervention appears to be a damage-control move aimed at reassuring voters and legal institutions that the party does not endorse challenges to judicial authority. Institutional reactions from within the legal fraternity remain cautious, with several senior advocates underscoring the importance of parliamentary leaders refraining from comments that could be construed as contemptuous or inflammatory.