Nishikant Dubey’s Attack on the Supreme Court Is an Attack on the Constitution Itself

India’s democracy rests on a delicate balance between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Each institution derives its legitimacy from the Constitution and operates within defined parameters to ensure the rule of law and protection of individual rights. Any violation of this balance—especially by elected representatives—does not merely invite criticism; it poses a direct threat to the integrity of our democratic framework. BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s recent outburst against the Supreme Court, therefore, must be seen not as a political aberration, but as a grave and calculated undermining of judicial independence.

In a shocking and deeply inappropriate public statement, Nishikant Dubey accused the Supreme Court of “inciting religious wars in the country.” He went further, suggesting that if every matter must ultimately be decided by the judiciary, then Parliament and State Assemblies should be “shut down.” Such language is not simply unbecoming of a Member of Parliament—it is dangerous. It reveals either a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution or, worse, a deliberate attempt to delegitimise one of the most vital institutions in Indian democracy.

What makes Nishikant Dubey’s comments particularly alarming is the context in which they were delivered. Over the last year, the Supreme Court has adjudicated a number of politically sensitive matters—ranging from the powers of governors in non-BJP ruled states, to the constitutional validity of laws like the Waqf Act. In fulfilling its duty of judicial review, the Court has acted as a check on majoritarian overreach and has, in some instances, restrained the excesses of the executive. That is precisely what it is meant to do.

Nishikant Dubey’s remarks reflect a growing trend within sections of the political class: the desire to silence the judiciary when its verdicts are inconvenient. The principle of judicial review, rooted in Article 13 and reinforced by landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, is not a ceremonial power. It is a cornerstone of India’s constitutional democracy. Without an independent judiciary capable of striking down laws and executive actions that violate fundamental rights, the Constitution becomes a dead letter. By publicly discrediting this function, Dubey is not merely expressing dissent—he is undermining the Constitution itself.

The outrage from the legal community was swift. Senior advocates approached the Attorney-General seeking consent to initiate contempt of court proceedings. Their contention was simple and correct: Nishikant Dubey’s remarks scandalise the judiciary and lower its authority in the eyes of the public. The Supreme Court, for its part, acknowledged that it does not need its own permission to act in such matters. But beyond the legal framework, the political response is where this controversy truly reveals the health of our democratic discourse.

In an unusual but welcome move, the Bharatiya Janata Party distanced itself from Nishikant Dubey’s remarks. Party president J.P. Nadda clarified that the views expressed were personal and did not reflect the party’s position. This distancing, however, must not be mistaken for accountability. Dubey continues to occupy his seat in Parliament. He has faced no disciplinary action from his party. No apology has been issued. In the absence of any real consequences, such statements risk becoming normalised in our public discourse.

This is not a matter of partisan politics. Opposition leaders—across the ideological spectrum—have rightly condemned Dubey’s statement. The Congress, the Aam Aadmi Party, the Rashtriya Janata Dal, and others have pointed out that such attacks erode public trust in the judiciary. But condemnation alone will not suffice. When a sitting Member of Parliament launches a public assault on the judiciary, it reflects a deeper malaise: the diminishing respect for institutional boundaries and a rising contempt for constitutional norms.

India’s judiciary is not above criticism, nor should it be immune from public scrutiny. But there is a vast and important difference between reasoned criticism and malicious delegitimisation. The former strengthens institutions; the latter weakens them. Dubey’s accusations fall squarely in the latter category. To suggest that the Supreme Court is responsible for religious conflict is not just factually baseless—it is incitement. It is the kind of rhetoric that can provoke societal unrest, not prevent it.

Moreover, such statements endanger judges themselves. In recent years, we have witnessed an increase in threats and online abuse directed at members of the judiciary, particularly when they issue rulings contrary to ruling party interests. When an MP like Dubey declares that the judiciary is acting against national interests or accuses it of playing politics, it emboldens these attacks and places individual judges at risk.

We must also reflect on the consequences of letting such statements pass unchecked. If politicians are allowed to paint judicial decisions as politically motivated, the average citizen may begin to lose faith in the judiciary’s neutrality. And once public trust in the judiciary erodes, the rule of law itself becomes vulnerable. That is the real danger here. A weakened judiciary cannot protect civil liberties, cannot enforce constitutional limits, and cannot ensure justice.

This is not the first time India’s judiciary has faced political pressure. During the Emergency, it buckled under executive assault. But it also rebounded in the post-Emergency years, asserting itself through landmark decisions that expanded the scope of fundamental rights and reaffirmed constitutional values. We must not allow history to repeat itself in reverse—through slow corrosion rather than sudden breakdown.

The responsibility now lies with three stakeholders. First, the judiciary must act decisively in this matter to protect its institutional integrity. Contempt proceedings, if sanctioned, should not be delayed. Second, political parties must establish clear boundaries for public discourse and punish those who cross them. A mere press release distancing the party from the remarks is insufficient. Third, civil society and the media must continue to push back against attempts to delegitimise constitutional institutions. Silence is complicity.

In conclusion, Nishikant Dubey’s comments are not just an affront to the Supreme Court—they are an affront to the Indian Constitution. They represent an alarming disregard for the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence. If left unchallenged, such attacks could become a precedent, encouraging more lawmakers to vilify institutions that stand in the way of political agendas. In a democracy governed by laws, not men, this cannot be allowed. The line must be drawn—and it must be drawn now.