BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s contentious remarks targeting Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna have ignited sharp political reaction with Cong leading the charge, legal outrage, and renewed debate over the judiciary’s role as a constitutional check amid rising political tensions. A report by Mudit Mathur
A political storm erupted when BJP MP Nishikant Dubey made an incendiary statement accusing Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna of being responsible for “all civil wars in the country.” The explosive remarks came on Saturday, 19 April, at a time of heightened political sensitivity, and it triggered a cascade of reactions from across the political spectrum, criticising him for his outrageous remarks demeaning the majesty of the apex judiciary. The backlash was swift and intense, not only from the Opposition but also from within Dubey’s party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which distanced itself from his views.
The timing of Dubey’s latest remarks is politically significant. They coincided with the Congress Party’s launch of its nationwide “Samvidhan Bachao” (Save the Constitution) campaign, aimed at raising public awareness about threats to India’s democratic institutions. Congress leaders viewed Dubey’s comments as evidence of a coordinated campaign by the BJP to undermine the judiciary, especially in light of recent Supreme Court decisions that have questioned the constitutional validity on the grounds of violating the basic structure principle.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on 22 April agreed to hear next week a plea flagging BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s recent criticism of the apex court and Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna. The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih. The counsel told the bench that after the video of Dubey’s remarks went viral, contemptuous, derogatory phrases were being used on social media for the top court as a part of malicious campaign, undermining the majesty of the Court.
The counsel said one of his colleagues wrote to Attorney General R Venkataramani seeking consent to initiate contempt proceedings against Dubey, but no action had been taken to date. “The issue is, at least give directions today to the social media platforms to remove this video,” he said.
The controversy triggered over an interview of BJP MP Nishikant Dubey with media wherein he remarked, “Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna is responsible for all the civil wars happening in this country.” “Supreme Court is responsible for inciting religious wars in the country. The Supreme Court is going beyond its limits. If one has to go to the Supreme Court for everything, then Parliament and State Assembly should be shut…” he added.
He further contended, “There was an Article 377 in which homosexuality is a big crime. The Trump administration has said that there are only two sexes in this world, either male or female…Whether it is Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Jain or Sikh, all believe that homosexuality is a crime. One fine morning, the Supreme Court said that we should abolish this…Article 141 says that the laws we make, the judgments we give, apply from the lower court to the Supreme Court. Article 368 says that Parliament has the right to make all laws and the Supreme Court has the right to interpret the law…”
BJP President J.P. Nadda was quick to issue a public statement distancing the party from Dubey’s comments. He clarified that the statements made by Dubey and BJP Rajya Sabha MP Dinesh Sharma, who had also criticized the judiciary, were personal opinions and did not reflect the BJP’s official stance. Nadda asserted that the BJP “completely rejected” the remarks and warned against making such statements, a move seen as an effort to manage the public perception and internal party discipline.
In a bid to quell the controversy, Dubey responded by stating he was a “disciplined soldier of the party” and that he would “go by what the party says.” Notably, he had earlier claimed he had not consulted the party about his views before making the controversial remarks. This apparent reversal was seen as a tactical retreat in the face of party pressure and public scrutiny.
The Congress Party responded vehemently. Jairam Ramesh, Congress Rajya Sabha MP and head of the party’s communications department, dismissed Nadda’s response as mere damage control. The distancing of the outgoing BJP President from the atrocious remarks made by two BJP MPs on the Chief Justice of India carries little meaning. These MPs are repeat offenders when it comes to hate speech and are very often used by G2 to attack communities, institutions, and individuals. The outgoing BJP President’s clarification is nothing but damage control. It will fool nobody. This is Entire Political Science reflecting itself as Entire Political Hypocrisy.
Specifically, Congress leaders cited the Supreme Court’s objections to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, and the court’s order mandating a timeline for the President’s assent on pending Bills. These judicial interventions have reportedly irked some within the ruling party, leading to accusations that the BJP is seeking to subvert judicial authority. A senior Congress leader described Dubey’s remarks as a “conspiracy of the BJP to start a narrative against the judiciary,” claiming the issue was “served to them on a platter” for their campaign.
Leading the Congress’s charge were Jairam Ramesh and K.C. Venugopal, AICC General Secretary (Organisation). Ramesh challenged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to clarify whether he tacitly supported these repeated attacks on the Constitution. Venugopal went further, calling Dubey’s statements a “direct attack on the Constitution” and warning of the dangers posed by individuals who become agitated whenever the judiciary upholds constitutional values. He emphasised that such attacks are meant to dismantle the checks and balances fundamental to democratic governance.
“The judiciary stands up for constitutional values, and certain individuals start hyperventilating. Threats, taunts, and tantrums follow because the idea of checks and balances clearly hurts some unchecked egos,” Venugopal posted on social media platform X (formerly Twitter).
In February 2025, Dubey had stepped into spotlight when he launched a scathing attack on the Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi after Gandhi’s response to the President’s address. In a formal letter to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, Dubey accused Gandhi of “shamelessly distorting historical and substantive facts” and attempting to “lower the prestige of our Republic.” The incident further solidified Dubey’s role as the BJP’s frontline defender against the Congress’s top leadership.
Dubey, a four-time Member of Parliament, representing Godda in Jharkhand, has had a long political journey deeply intertwined with right-wing ideology. Born in Deoghar, Bihar, and the nephew of a former Jana Sangh leader, Dubey began his political grooming in Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Shakhas. He joined the BJP formally in 2009 after working in the corporate sector, and his rise in the party has been rapid. Known for his aggressive oratory, Dubey has consistently been chosen to spearhead key debates in Parliament, including the surprise move by the BJP to have him lead the 2023 debate on the Women’s Reservation Bill in the Lok Sabha.
Despite the BJP’s attempts to contain the damage, including Nadda’s public disavowal, the controversy has bolstered the Opposition’s narrative that the BJP is undermining India’s constitutional framework. The Congress’s ongoing campaign aims to highlight what it sees as a dangerous trend of institutional erosion and authoritarian behaviour by the ruling party.
In conclusion, the episode surrounding Nishikant Dubey’s remarks is emblematic of a broader political struggle over the future of India’s constitutional democracy. As the ruling party seeks to navigate the fallout from internal dissent and external criticism, the Opposition is preparing to leverage these incidents to rally public sentiment and frame the BJP as a threat to judicial independence and democratic norms. With Bihar assembly elections approaching and public scrutiny intensifying, the political ramifications of this controversy are likely to be felt far beyond the parliamentary walls.
