The Supreme Court on Monday said it will not entertain a petition seeking contempt of court action against Bharatiya Janata Party MP Nishikant Dubey for claiming that Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna was responsible for “all civil wars” in the country, reported Bar and Bench.

The BJP MP, who made the claims on April 19, also said that the Supreme Court was responsible for “inciting religious wars” and said the top court “is going beyond its limits…”.

“If one has to go to the Supreme Court for everything, then Parliament and state Assembly should be shut,” Dubey was quoted as saying by ANI.

On Monday, the Supreme Court said that it will pass a short order in the matter but “will not be entertaining” the public interest litigation petition filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari.

Tiwari had stated in the plea that Dubey’s remarks were “replete with derogatory speech towards the judiciary and Supreme Court”, according to Bar and Bench.

On April 22, the Supreme Court Bar Association sought contempt action against Dubey. “This attack on the Supreme Court, as an institution, and qua the Chief Justice of India Mr Justice Sanjiv Khanna, as an individual, is unacceptable and must be dealt with in accordance with the law,” said the association.

It also urged the attorney general to take action against Dubey.

Under the 1971 Contempt of Courts Act, an individual can file a contempt petition in the Supreme Court only with approval from the attorney general or the solicitor general.

On April 19, Dubey cited the Supreme Court’s decisions to decriminalise homosexuality in 2018 and the striking down of section 66(a) of the Information Technology Act in 2021 to support his claim that the court was overstepping its role.

The MP from Jharkhand’s Godda claimed that the court had decriminalised homosexuality despite “all [religious] communities considering it wrong”. He also referred to the Donald Trump administration in the United States passing an executive order in January, in which it said that only two sexes will be recognised.

The Godda MP claimed that section 66(a) of the IT Act was necessary to stop the misuse of online platforms to share objectionable content.

Dubey also said: “When the issue of the Ram temple comes up, you [the Supreme Court] say ‘show documents’; when the issue of Krishna Janmabhoomi comes up in Mathura, you will say ‘show documents’; when it comes to the Gyanvapi mosque, you will again say ‘show documents’.”

“But when it comes to the mosques built after the arrival of the Mughals, you say there are no documents to show,” he had added.

The BJP MP had also questioned how the Supreme Court could issue directives to its appointing authority. “The president appoints the chief justice of India,” he said.

The comment was in reference to the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgement imposing a three-month deadline for the president to approve or reject bills referred by state governors.