NEW DELHI: BJP MP Nishikant Dubey lashed out at Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna Saturday for having sought to undo the just-enacted changes to the waqf law, warning that the CJI is responsible for civil wars happening in the country. The govt, faced with questions from the CJI-led bench hearing challenges to the law, Thursday agreed to pause the operation of a few crucial aspects of the Waqf Act . "If Supreme Court makes law then Parliament House should be closed," Dubey posted on X.
BJP distanced itself from the remarks, stating that they were made in the MP's personal capacity. Party chief J P Nadda said, "BJP neither agrees with such statements nor does it ever support such statements. BJP completely rejects these statements."
Dubey elaborated on his criticism during an interaction with reporters, accusing the court of arrogating to itself Parliament's legislative powers by striking down laws passed by the legislature. "They cannot become the third chamber. They cannot rewrite the law," he said.
Dubey stressed the court was even giving directions to the President, who is the appointing authority of SC judges, while referring to the recent SC verdict mandating the President to decide on a legislation referred to him/her within a time-frame.
They cannot become the third chamber. They certainly cannot rewrite the law,” Dubey said.
Nishikant Dubey stressed the court was even giving directions to the President, who is the appointing authority of Supreme Court judges, while referring to the recent SC verdict mandating the President to decide on a legislation referred to him/her within a timeframe. “It is rewriting the Constitution. President is supposed to act only with the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet. Now, a two judge-bench, and not even a five-judge Constitution bench, is saying that you act independently of the Cabinet and you have to follow our advice,” he said, seeming to echo an unrest in governing circles over the verdict written by Justice J B Pardiwala.
Dubey’s comments came following the Centre’s assurance to the court that it would not implement some of the contentious provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act till the next date of hearing after the court raised questions over them.
On the changes in the Waqf Act, Dubey was critical especially of the CJI-led bench’s reservations about the new provision which lays down that for a property to be recognised as belonging to waqf it needed to be registered as such. The SC bench, while expressing concern over claims such as the Delhi high court was located on waqf land, had said that a mosque in existence for 500 years may not have been registered.
“After having asked us to establish the proof of the birth of Ram, for the court to say this is ironical, to say the least. It is promoting ‘kaagaz nahi dikhayenge (won’t show papers)’ mindset and a sense that some among us can force the court to change the law just by creating unrest. SC seems to be working on ‘show me face and I will show you the law’,” he said.
BJP also distanced itself from the comments made by its MP Dinesh Sharma, who told news agency ANI that “according to the Constitution of India, no one can direct the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and the President has already given her assent to it. No one can challenge the President, as the President is supreme”.
Nadda said, “BJP has always respected the judiciary and gladly accepted its orders and suggestions because as a party we believe that all the courts of the country including the Supreme Court are an integral part of our democracy and are the strong pillar of the protection of the Constitution. I have instructed both of them and everyone else not to make such statements.”
BJP distanced itself from the remarks, stating that they were made in the MP's personal capacity. Party chief J P Nadda said, "BJP neither agrees with such statements nor does it ever support such statements. BJP completely rejects these statements."
Dubey elaborated on his criticism during an interaction with reporters, accusing the court of arrogating to itself Parliament's legislative powers by striking down laws passed by the legislature. "They cannot become the third chamber. They cannot rewrite the law," he said.
Dubey stressed the court was even giving directions to the President, who is the appointing authority of SC judges, while referring to the recent SC verdict mandating the President to decide on a legislation referred to him/her within a time-frame.
They cannot become the third chamber. They certainly cannot rewrite the law,” Dubey said.
Nishikant Dubey stressed the court was even giving directions to the President, who is the appointing authority of Supreme Court judges, while referring to the recent SC verdict mandating the President to decide on a legislation referred to him/her within a timeframe. “It is rewriting the Constitution. President is supposed to act only with the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet. Now, a two judge-bench, and not even a five-judge Constitution bench, is saying that you act independently of the Cabinet and you have to follow our advice,” he said, seeming to echo an unrest in governing circles over the verdict written by Justice J B Pardiwala.
Dubey’s comments came following the Centre’s assurance to the court that it would not implement some of the contentious provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act till the next date of hearing after the court raised questions over them.
On the changes in the Waqf Act, Dubey was critical especially of the CJI-led bench’s reservations about the new provision which lays down that for a property to be recognised as belonging to waqf it needed to be registered as such. The SC bench, while expressing concern over claims such as the Delhi high court was located on waqf land, had said that a mosque in existence for 500 years may not have been registered.
“After having asked us to establish the proof of the birth of Ram, for the court to say this is ironical, to say the least. It is promoting ‘kaagaz nahi dikhayenge (won’t show papers)’ mindset and a sense that some among us can force the court to change the law just by creating unrest. SC seems to be working on ‘show me face and I will show you the law’,” he said.
BJP also distanced itself from the comments made by its MP Dinesh Sharma, who told news agency ANI that “according to the Constitution of India, no one can direct the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and the President has already given her assent to it. No one can challenge the President, as the President is supreme”.
Nadda said, “BJP has always respected the judiciary and gladly accepted its orders and suggestions because as a party we believe that all the courts of the country including the Supreme Court are an integral part of our democracy and are the strong pillar of the protection of the Constitution. I have instructed both of them and everyone else not to make such statements.”
You may also like
Man Utd news: Hefty price tag slapped on Viktor Gyokeres alternative as target makes admission
The 1 Easter roast lamb mistake that could ruin your air fryer
Simple method to revive sandals with one item for 'incredible' results
Food Review: Shenoy's Is Taking GSB (Gaud Saraswat Brahmins) Cuisine To A Whole New Level – You Won't Want To Miss This
Real reason Meghan Markle never joined the Royal Family at Easter revealed
