BJP distances itself from party MPs’ remarks on judiciary

New Delhi: The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has disassociated itself from the remarks made by two of its Members of Parliament (MPs) — Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma — regarding the judiciary and the Chief Justice of India.

The party clarified that these statements were “personal opinions” and do not reflect the BJP’s stance.

The BJP emphasised its unwavering respect for the judiciary, which it considers a cornerstone of democracy and a vital protector of the Constitution.

BJP chief J.P. Nadda, in a post on X, distanced the party from the comments by the MPs.

“The BJP has nothing to do with the statements made by BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma on the judiciary and the Chief Justice of the country. These are their personal statements, but the BJP neither agrees with such statements nor does it ever support such statements. The BJP completely rejects these statements,” J.P. Nadda said.

The party reiterated its commitment to accepting judicial orders and suggestions and has instructed its members to refrain from making such statements in the future.

Separately, Nishikant Dubey’s comments targeting the Supreme Court have drawn significant attention.

Particularly, the word “anarchy’’ which he has used and “inciting religious wars”.

Dubey criticised the judiciary amid on-going hearings on the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

This Act has been challenged by petitioners who argue that it violates constitutional rights, including equality and freedom of religion.

The controversy has sparked political debate, with opposition parties like Congress accusing the BJP of attempting to undermine the judiciary.

During the hearings, the Central government assured the Supreme Court that it would not de-notify provisions related to ‘Waqf-by-user’ or include non-Muslim members in the Waqf Board.

This assurance followed the court’s indication that it might consider staying certain parts of the law.

The case has highlighted tensions between legislative actions and judicial oversight, with critics expressing concerns about potential encroachments on constitutional rights.

Dubey’s remarks echo earlier criticisms of the judiciary by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who questioned the role of judges in legislative matters.

These incidents have fuelled broader discussions about the balance of power between India’s legislative and judicial branches and the implications for democratic governance.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that Governor R.N. Ravi’s refusal to approve 10 bills in Tamil Nadu was both “illegal and arbitrary”.

It set a three-month deadline for Presidential and gubernatorial approval of bills passed by the legislature for a second time.

Additionally, the court suggested that the President should consult the Supreme Court on Bills involving Constitutional issues.

IANS