New Delhi: Even as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) distanced itself from MPs Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma’s comments on the Supreme Court, their statement reflects uneasiness of the Modi government and the ruling party over the court’s recent decsion and actions that have not gone their way.
There is an overriding feeling within the BJP that the apex court has been “overstepping” its remit and encroached the executive’s domain on two matters: first, dragging the President, along with the Governors, by setting a deadline to clear Bills and two, its interim order on Waqf Act that was passed by Parliament.
Although BJP president J.P. Nadda distanced the party from the statements of Dubey and Sharma, several senior BJP leaders in private say that the top court made a “judicial overreach” in the Tamil Nadu governor case.
The first sign of “uneasiness” became apparent when Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar said that the SC ruling on the Tamil Nadu governor was an “overreach”.
“The Constitution has not put any time-limit for the governor to give assent to the bill. But if the Supreme Court today says there has to be a time-limit, be it one or three months, it becomes a Constitutional amendment. If the constitutional amendment is being done by the court, why are legislature and Parliament needed?” he said in an interview to The Hindustan Times. “It is the right of the Parliament to make amendments. You need to have a two-third majority in favour of the amendment. And two judges sitting there, they decide the fate of the constitutional provision? I don’t understand this. This is overreach by the judiciary. They should not have done this. I may be wrong.”
Earlier, Attorney General R Venkataramani had told The Indian Express that the President should have been heard by the Supreme Court before a three-month deadline was fixed to clear Bills reserved for consideration by the Governor.
This sense of unease was bolstered when none other than Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, while criticising the SC ruling in Tamil Nadu vs Governor case, deadline for the President and Governors to clear bills passed by state governments, described Article 142, which grants plenary powers to the apex court, as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces available to the judiciary 24×7”.
What is more telling is that Dhankhar, a former BJP leader, made this scathing comment at a Rajya Sabha internship programme’s valedictory event. Dhankhar has drawn widespread criticism for his attack on the judiciary while holding a constitutional office.
The tipping point came apparently when the CJI Sanjeev Khanna-led bench during hearing of the Waqf Act hinted at stalling some aspects of the law. This forced the Modi government to buy some more time, much to the embarrassment of the dispensation.
It is in the backdrop of this SC nudge that Dubey blamed CJI Sanjiv Khanna for “civil wars” in the country. The Parliament should close down if the Supreme Court makes laws, the four-time BJP MP said on ‘X’.
क़ानून यदि सुप्रीम कोर्ट ही बनाएगा तो संसद भवन बंद कर देना चाहिये
— Dr Nishikant Dubey (@nishikant_dubey) April 19, 2025
Similarly, Rajya Sabha MP Dinesh Sharma had asserted that the President is “supreme” according to the Constitution of India and no one can “challenge” the Rashtrapati Bhavan.
Also Read: What’s the latest discord pitting Chirag Paswan against uncle Paras, four yrs after LJP split
‘Ready to resign’
BJP MP Jagdambika Pal, the head of Joint Committee of Parliament on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, threatened to resign the JPC, if the court stalled the Act.
“All concerns of the court have been already addressed in the JPC which extensively reviewed the Bill. If there is any shortcoming, I am ready to resign. The opposition parties are doing politics and misguiding the Muslims; they want a division of the country,” Pal, a former chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, told ThePrint.
Kailash Vijayvargiya, a Madhya Pradesh cabinet minister, felt Dubey shouldn’t have made the comment in public. “Sometimes even if there is truth, it should not be stated. Nishikant ji is my younger brother, and he should not speak (this) publicly. The party has issued guidelines to not speak on this issue. In today’s time, the people know everything…,” he told media.
Kerala BJP chief Rajeev Chandrasekhar, too, said that Nadda’s statement reflected the party and his position as well.
BJP Mahila Morcha head Vanathi Srinivasan, a lawyer herself, told ThePrint that the party has instructed workers not to speak on this issue and that the party president has clarified that the party respects constitutional authority and judiciary.
Former South Delhi MP Ramesh Bidhuri, who is an advocate practicing in the Delhi High Court, told ThePrint that every constitutional authority should maintain sanctity and that Dubey should not have spoken on this matter.
A senior BJP functionary was more forthcoming about why Nadda distanced the party from the two remarks, saying that “no wrong message” should go out.
“Despite uneasiness within the government and the party, the government doesn’t want to send a message that they are allowing its cadre to attack the Supreme Court, which will be counter productive… So, the message was relayed by the BJP chief himself rather than by a spokesperson,” the BJP functionary said.
“If a constitutional authority spoke on the issue, it’s a different matter…but allowing the cadre to attack the CJI has dangerous repercussions. The party publicly doesn’t want to be seen as attacking the judiciary.”
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: After Ladli Behna & Ladki Bahin pass the poll test, BJP’s Ladli Laxmi scheme is on the way to Bihar
