The Supreme Court has described Bharatiya Janata Party MP Nishikant Dubey’s allegation that Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna was responsible for “all civil wars” in the country as “highly irresponsible”.

However, the bench led by Khanna refrained from taking contempt action against Dubey saying public confidence in the credibility of courts cannot be shaken by “such absurd statements”.

“The statements show ignorance about the role of the constitutional courts and the duties and obligations bestowed on them under the Constitution,” the judgement said. “At the same time, we are of the firm opinion that courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements.”

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.

A lawyer named Vishal Tiwari moved the Supreme Court seeking suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Dubey and the registration of first information reports over hate speeches by political leaders related to the Waqf Act, Live Law reported.

In its judgement, the court held that every contemptuous statement does not have to be penalised.

“Courts believe in values like free press, fair trial, judicial fearlessness and community confidence,” the court said. “Thus, courts need not protect their verdicts and decisions by taking recourse to the power of contempt. Surely, courts and judges have shoulders broad enough and an implicit trust that the people would perceive and recognize when criticism or critique is biased, scandalous and ill-intentioned.”

However the court highlighted that any attempt to spread communal hate “should be dealt with an iron hand”.

“Hate speech cannot be tolerated as it leads to loss of dignity and self-worth of the targeted group members,” the judgement added.

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.