New Delhi16 minutes ago
- Copy link
The Supreme Court said on the remarks of BJP MP Nishikant Dubey that Hate will deal with iron with iron.
The Supreme Court on Thursday described BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s statement as extremely irresponsible. He also said that this rhetoric was made to draw attention.
The Supreme Court also said this in strict tone,
The courts are not so delicate like flowers that they wither away in front of such ridiculous statements. Any attempt to spread communal hatred, will deal with iron hands with a hate speech.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petition against Nishikant Dubey. The apex court on May 5 heard a contempt petition against Nishikant Dubey. It was said that we were the ones who had heard the petitions against the Waqf Amendment Act.
BJP MPs said- CJI is responsible for inciting civil war in the country
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 was filed against Nishikant
Former IPS Amitabh Thakur had filed a petition in the Supreme Court on 20 April demanding Dubey’s statements to be brought under the purview of criminal contempt.
Earlier, Supreme Court lawyer Narendra Mishra filed a letter petition and requested to start 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 action.
BJP bid- does not support MP’s statements
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.
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 …
——————————————————–
Read this news related to the case too …
Vice President said- The courts cannot order the President, judge acting like ‘Super Parliament’
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar objected to the advice of the Supreme Court on 17 April, in which he had set a deadline for the President and the governors to approve the bills. Dhankhar had said that the courts could not order the President. Read full news …