BJP never support such statements: Nadda after Nishikant Dubey attacks CJI and Supreme Court

The Bharatiya Janata Get together (BJP) chief Nishikant Dubey on Saturday (April 19) alleged that the Supreme Court of India is answerable for ‘inciting spiritual wars’ within the nation, saying the Parliament constructing must be closed down if the apex courtroom has to make the legal guidelines. “The highest courtroom has just one goal: ‘Present me the face, will present you the legislation’. The Supreme Court goes past its limits. If one has to go to the Supreme Court for all the things, then Parliament and State Meeting must be shut,” Dubey informed media. BJP MP Dubey stated, “Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, is answerable for all of the civil wars taking place on this nation”. 

JP Nadda reacts on Nishikant Dubey’s assertion

Union Minister Jagat Prakash Nadda posted on X and stated, “The Bharatiya Janata Get together has nothing to do with the statements made by BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma on the judiciary and the Chief Justice of India. These are their private statements, however the BJP neither agrees with such statements nor does it ever support such statements. The BJP utterly rejects these statements.”

“Bharatiya Janata Get together has all the time revered the judiciary and gladly accepted its orders and recommendations as a result of as a celebration we imagine that every one the courts of the nation together with the Supreme Court are an integral a part of our democracy and are the robust pillar of the safety of the Structure. I’ve instructed each of them and everybody else to not make such statements,” Nadda added. 

Parliament has proper to make all legal guidelines: BJP MP attacks SC

“There was an Article 377 wherein homosexuality is an enormous crime. The Trump administration has stated that there are solely two sexes on this world, both male or feminine…Whether or not it’s Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Jain or Sikh, all imagine that homosexuality is a criminal offense. One high quality morning, the Supreme Court stated that we abolish this case…Article 141 says that the legal guidelines we make, the judgments we give, are relevant from the decrease courtroom to the Supreme Court. Article 368 says that Parliament has the appropriate to make all legal guidelines and the Supreme Court has the appropriate to interpret the legislation. The highest courtroom is asking the President and Governor to inform what they should go concerning the Payments. When Ram Mandir or Krishna Janamboomi or Gyanvapi comes, you (SC) says ‘Present us the paper’. Mughals ke aane ke baad jo Masjid banne hai unke liye keh raho ho paper kaha se dikhao,” he added.

Supreme Court taking India in the direction of anarchy: BJP chief Dubey 

“How will you give path to the appointing authority? The President appoints the Chief Justice of India. The Parliament makes the legislation of this nation. You’ll dictate that Parliament?… How did you make a brand new legislation? By which legislation is it written that the President has to take a call inside three months? Because of this you need to take this nation in the direction of anarchy. When the Parliament sits, there might be an in depth dialogue on this,” Dubey stated.

Parliament must be closed down: Nishikant Dubey

Earlier right this moment, in a publish on X in Hindi, Nishikant Dubey criticised the Supreme Court, stating, “If the Supreme Court makes the legislation, then the Parliament Home must be closed down.”

His remark got here amid the continued listening to within the Supreme Court over a number of petitions difficult the constitutionality of the Waqf (Modification) Act, 2025. Notably, the Centre had assured the Supreme Court throughout the listening to held on April 17 that it will not denotify any ‘Waqf-by-user’ provision and wouldn’t embrace any non-Muslim members within the Board. The peace of mind comes a day after the highest courtroom stated it’s going to think about staying these components of the legislation.

Congress attacks Nishikant Dubey over his assertion on Supreme Court

The Congress leaders attacked Nishikant Dubey over his assertion on the Supreme Court and stated that the latter repeatedly “demolishes” all different establishments. Congress chief Manickam Tagore termed Nishikant Dubey’s assertion on the Supreme Court “defamatory,” and stated that his assault on the highest courtroom is “not acceptable.” “This can be a defamatory assertion towards the Supreme Court. Nishikant Dubey is an individual who repeatedly demolishes all different establishments. Now, he has attacked the Supreme Court. I hope that the Supreme Court judges will take this into discover as he isn’t talking in Parliament however outdoors it. His assault on the Supreme Court just isn’t acceptable,” Tagore informed media.

Congress MP Imran Masood stated that the reported assertion made by the BJP chief is “unlucky.” “The sorts of statements which can be coming towards the Supreme Court are very unlucky…This isn’t the primary time that the Supreme Court has given a call towards the complete majority authorities…This frustration is meaningless,” Masood stated.

The Supreme Court’s latest determination to set a timeline for the President of India to take a call on the payments despatched to her has additionally triggered a debate, with Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar voicing disapproval of the judgment. 

Jagdeep Dhankhar criticises ‘Indian judiciary’ 

Earlier on April 17, Jagdeep Dhankhar stated India can not have a state of affairs the place the judiciary directs the President, including that Article 142 of the Structure has turn out to be a “nuclear missile towards democratic forces for the judiciary. Talking on the Valedictory Perform of the sixth Rajya Sabha Internship Programme, Dhankhar proposed an modification to Article 145(3), which offers with the composition of the bench required to resolve substantial questions of constitutional legislation.”

We can not have a state of affairs the place you direct the President of India, and on what foundation? The one proper you have got underneath the Structure is to interpret the Structure underneath Article 145(3). There, it must be 5 judges or extra. When Article 145(3) was there, the variety of judges within the Supreme Court was eight, 5 out of 8, now 5 out of 30 and odd. However overlook about it; the judges who issued a mandamus nearly to the President and offered a state of affairs that it will be the legislation of the land have forgotten the ability of the Structure. How can that mixture of judges take care of one thing underneath Article 145(3) if preserved, it was then for 5 out of eight. We additionally must make amends for that now. 5 out of eight would imply interpretation might be by majority. Effectively, 5 constitutes greater than the bulk in eight. However depart that apart. Article 142 has turn out to be a nuclear missile towards Democratic forces, obtainable to the judiciary 24 x 7,” Dhankar stated.