New Delhi6 minutes ago
- Copy link
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the petition filed against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey on Tuesday. The court has asked the petition to be listed next week.
The petition demanded the removal of video of BJP MP’s statements against the Supreme Court and Chief Justice of India (CJI) from social media platforms. The case was kept in front of the back of Justice BR Gawai and Justice AJ Christ for immediate hearing.
Nishikant Dubey had said on April 19- CJI Sanjeev Khanna and Supreme Court are responsible for inciting religious war in the country. Dubey was talking about the Supreme Court’s decision to set a time limit to the President to take a decision on the Bills. The Supreme Court on 8 April ordered that the President would have to take a decision on a bill within 3 months.
A contempt petition also filed against Dubey Former IPS Amitabh Thakur had filed a petition in the Supreme Court on 20 April demanding to bring Dubey’s statements under criminal contempt.
Earlier, Supreme Court lawyer Narendra Mishra filed a letter petition and requested to initiate contempt proceedings by taking automatic cognizance.
Apart from this, Supreme Court lawyers Anas Tanveer and Shivkumar Tripathi wrote a letter to the Attorney General seeking permission to start criminal contempt proceedings.
BJP opposed Dubey’s statement On Nishikant Dubey’s statement, Nadda wrote in the X post- BJP neither coincidences nor supports such statements with such statements. The BJP dismisses these statements outright. The party has always honored the judiciary.
The party has gladly accepted the court orders and suggestions, because as a party we believe that all the courts of the country including the Supreme Court are integral to our democracy. There is a strong foundation for the protection of the Constitution. I have directed both of them and everyone not to make such statements.
Opposition and former judge reaction to Nishikant’s statement
- Congress MP Jairam Ramesh Said, the Supreme Court is being intentionally targeted because on many issues like electoral bonds, the Supreme Court has said that what the government has done is unconstitutional.
- Congress leader Salman Khurshid Said, if an MP questions the Supreme Court or any court, it is very sad. The final decision in our judicial system is not of the government but of the Supreme Court. If anyone does not understand this, then it is very sad.
- AAP spokes Priyanka Kakkar Said, he (Nishikant Dubey) has given a very poor statement. I hope that tomorrow the Supreme Court will start contempt proceedings by taking automatic cognizance against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and will send him to jail.
- Supreme Court Former judge Ashok Kumar Ganguly Said, according to Article 53 of the Constitution, the President should work according to the Constitution, if it is not, then the Supreme Court can direct the President. There is nothing wrong in this. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar needs to understand that no one is above the law.
What has happened on the dispute so far…
17 April: Dhankhar said- courts cannot order the President
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar was addressing a group of Rajya Sabha intern on 17 April. During this time, he objected to the advice of the Supreme Court, in which the President and the governors had set a deadline for approving the bills.
Dhankhar had said- “The courts cannot order the President. The special rights under Article 142 of the Constitution have become 24×7 available nuclear missile against democratic powers. Judges are acting as a super parliamentary.” Read full news …
April 18: Sibal said- President nominal head in India
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal said that when the executive does not work, the judiciary will have to intervene. The President is the head of the nominal head in India. The President-Governor has to work on the advice of governments. I am surprised to hear the Vice President, I am also sad. They should not talk to any party.
Referring to a decision of the Supreme Court on 24 June 1975, Sibal said- ‘People will remember when the decision on Indira Gandhi’s election came, only one judge, Justice Krishna Iyer ruled. At that time Indira had to lose Sansadi. Then Dhankhar ji approved this. But now the decision of the two -judge bench against the government is being questioned. Read full news …
8 April: Controversy started with this decision of Supreme Court
The Supreme Court had set the limit of the authority of the Governor in the case of the Tamil Nadu Governor and the State Government on 8 April. The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan had said, “The Governor has no veto power.” The Supreme Court also termed the government’s 10 essential bills being stopped by the Governor as illegal.
During this decision, the court also clarified the situation on the bill sent by the Governors to the President. The Supreme Court had said that the President would have to take a decision on the bill sent by the Governor within 3 months. The order was made public on 11 April. Read full news …
Leave a Reply