Nishikant Dubey's remark sparks contempt debate: Can MPs be prosecuted?

Several opposition leaders are demanding contempt proceedings against Nishikant Dubey, saying his remarks have undermined the judiciary. But can a sitting MP be charged under the Act?

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey has stoked a controversy with his remarks against the Supreme Court, prompting his party to distance itself from his comments. Opposition parties have criticised Dubey, saying his statement warrants contempt proceedings.

 

On Saturday, Dubey alleged that the Supreme Court was “inciting religious wars” by agreeing to hear petitions challenging bills passed by Parliament. His comment came after the Centre assured the apex court that it would not implement certain contentious provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act until the next day of hearing.

 

Dubey also stated that the Parliament building should be closed if the judiciary was to make laws.

 

 

Now, several opposition leaders are demanding contempt proceedings against Dubey, saying his remarks have undermined the judiciary. According to news agency PTI, a Supreme Court lawyer representing one of the litigants in the Waqf Act case has written to Attorney General R Venkatramani, seeking consent to initiate contempt proceedings against the MP. 

But can a sitting Member of Parliament be charged with contempt of court? Let us find out.

 

What does the law say?

 

Elected Members of Parliament in India can be charged with contempt of court for remarks deemed derogatory or scandalous towards the Supreme Court. Past judgments confirm that parliamentary status offers no immunity from judicial scrutiny.

 

Article 129 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of itself. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, includes provisions against acts that “scandalise the authority of the court” or “tend to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings.”

 

While freedom of speech is constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(a), courts have held that this freedom is not absolute—particularly when weighed against the need to preserve the dignity of the judiciary.

 

Past judgments

 

In several cases, the Supreme Court has initiated contempt proceedings against individuals—including elected officials—who made disparaging comments about the judiciary.

 

In 1970, former Kerala Chief Minister EMS Namboodiripad was fined Rs 50 by the Supreme Court for stating that courts served the interests of the rich. The bench observed that while free speech was a guaranteed right, it could not extend to undermining public confidence in the judicial system.

 

In recent years, the cases of Kapil Sibal and P Chidambaram have drawn attention, although these did not lead to contempt convictions. In August 2022, Sibal—an advocate and a Rajya Sabha MP—sparked controversy after saying he had “no hope left” in the Supreme Court. The All India Bar Association termed his comments “contemptuous,” and two lawyers sought the Attorney General’s consent to initiate contempt proceedings. However, Attorney General K K Venugopal declined the request. 

Also Read | SC warns states of contempt for inaction on misleading advertisements

 

In 2012, P Chidambaram, then Union Finance Minister, was implicated in the INX Media case, accused of facilitating irregular Foreign Investment Promotion Board clearances. BJP MP Subramanian Swamy alleged that Chidambaram and his son obstructed justice by filing a defamation suit in Singapore to deter him from pursuing the case. Swamy sought the Supreme Court’s permission to initiate contempt proceedings, but the court did not take cognisance of the plea.

 

Contempt of court: The process

 

Contempt proceedings can be initiated in two primary ways:

 

• The court takes suo motu cognisance (on its own motion), or
• On the basis of a petition, usually filed by an aggrieved party or upon the recommendation of the Attorney General or Solicitor General

 

When the court decides to proceed, it issues a show cause notice to the individual accused of contempt, requiring them to explain why they should not be held guilty.

 

If found guilty, the maximum punishment under the law is six months’ simple imprisonment or a fine of up to Rs 2,000 or both. However, most cases involving public figures have been resolved through unconditional apologies.

 

Can an MP be disqualified if convicted of contempt?

 

A conviction for contempt does not lead to automatic disqualification from Parliament under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, unless the sentence exceeds two years. Since contempt penalties seldom cross that threshold, MPs remain protected from disqualification in most such cases.

 

While Parliament may choose to debate remarks made by or against MPs under its own privileges framework, judicial contempt is treated as a separate and independent process. The Privileges Committee of either House may intervene only if the matter is raised within Parliament. 

Also Read | Waqf showdown: BJP MP Nishikant Dubey demands apology from Sonia Gandhi