The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has publicly distanced itself from controversial statements made by two of its Members of Parliament, Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma, regarding the Supreme Court of India. The remarks, which questioned the judiciary’s role in legislative matters, prompted a swift response from BJP President JP Nadda, who clarified that the statements were personal opinions and not reflective of the party’s stance. This article examines the context of the MPs’ comments, the BJP’s official position, and the broader implications for the party’s relationship with the judiciary.
On Saturday, April 18, 2025, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, a fourterm parliamentarian, launched a pointed critique of the Supreme Court during a press conference in New Delhi and through posts on X. His remarks followed the Centre’s assurance to the Supreme Court that it would refrain from implementing certain provisions of the recently passed Waqf (Amendment) Act until the next hearing, prompted by the court’s probing questions. The Supreme Court is currently reviewing multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Act, which has stirred debate over its implications for religious and property rights.
भाजपा सांसद निशिकांत दुबे और दिनेश शर्मा का न्यायपालिका एवं देश के चीफ जस्टिस पर दिए गए बयान से भारतीय जनता पार्टी का कोई लेना–देना नहीं है। यह इनका व्यक्तिगत बयान है, लेकिन भाजपा ऐसे बयानों से न तो कोई इत्तेफाक रखती है और न ही कभी भी ऐसे बयानों का समर्थन करती है। भाजपा इन बयान…
— Jagat Prakash Nadda (@JPNadda) April 19, 2025
In a post on X, Dubey remarked in Hindi, “Kanoon yadi Supreme Court hi banayega to Sansad Bhavan bandh kar dena chahiye” (If the Supreme Court makes laws, then Parliament should be shut down). Speaking to the Press Trust of India (PTI), he accused the court of overstepping its constitutional bounds by striking down laws passed by Parliament and issuing directives to the President, who appoints Supreme Court judges. Dubey invoked Article 368 of the Constitution, which vests legislative authority in Parliament, arguing that the judiciary’s role is limited to interpreting laws, not shaping legislative decisions.
He further questioned the court’s scrutiny of the “Waqf by use” clause in the Act, contrasting it with what he described as the court’s stricter evidentiary standards in temple-related cases, such as the Ram Mandir dispute. BJP MP Dinesh Sharma also made remarks critical of the judiciary, though specifics of his statements were not detailed in the party’s response.
BJP’s Official Response
In a statement issued on X, originally in Hindi, BJP President JP Nadda categorically rejected the MPs’ remarks. “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,” Nadda said. “These are their personal remarks, and the BJP neither agrees with nor supports such statements. The party outrightly rejects them.”
Nadda reaffirmed the BJP’s commitment to judicial independence, stating, “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.” He further disclosed that he had instructed both MPs, and all party members, to refrain from making such statements in the future, signaling a directive to maintain discipline within the party ranks.
Implications for the BJP and Judiciary
The BJP’s swift disavowal of the MPs’ remarks underscores its intent to maintain a harmonious relationship with the judiciary, a critical institution in India’s democratic framework. The Supreme Court’s ongoing review of the Waqf (Amendment) Act has placed the government under scrutiny, and Dubey’s comments risked escalating tensions between the executive, legislature, and judiciary. By publicly distancing itself from the statements, the BJP aims to mitigate any perception of institutional conflict and reinforce its respect for the separation of powers.
The controversy also highlights the delicate balance political leaders must strike when commenting on judicial matters. While MPs are entitled to express personal views, statements that appear to challenge the judiciary’s authority can draw criticism and undermine public confidence in democratic institutions. Nadda’s intervention reflects the party’s recognition of the need to address such missteps promptly, particularly in the context of a high-profile case like the Waqf (Amendment) Act.
Broader Context
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, passed by Parliament earlier in April 2025, has been a focal point of legal and political debate. The Act introduces reforms to the management of Waqf properties, but critics argue that certain provisions infringe on religious freedoms and property rights. The Supreme Court’s decision to question contentious clauses, such as “Waqf by use,” prompted the Centre to pause implementation, a move that Dubey interpreted as judicial overreach.
Dubey’s reference to the Ram Mandir case and other temple-related disputes suggests an attempt to draw parallels between judicial approaches to different religious communities. However, his remarks have been met with criticism for oversimplifying complex legal issues and for appearing to challenge the judiciary’s impartiality
.png)
The opinions posted here do not belong to 🔰www.indiansdaily.com. The author is solely responsible for the opinions.
As per the IT policy of the Central Government, insults against an individual, community, religion or country, defamatory and inflammatory remarks, obscene and vulgar language are punishable offenses. Legal action will be taken for such expressions of opinion.