On Monday, the Supreme Court announced that it would not consider a petition aimed at initiating contempt proceedings against Bharatiya Janata Party MP Nishikant Dubey. This petition was in response to Dubey's assertion that Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna was accountable for all civil conflicts in India.

Dubey, who made these controversial statements on April 19, also accused the Supreme Court of inciting religious conflicts and suggested that the court was overstepping its boundaries.

He was quoted saying, “If one has to approach the Supreme Court for every issue, then Parliament and state Assemblies should be dissolved.”

During the proceedings, the Supreme Court indicated that it would issue a brief order regarding the matter but would not entertain the public interest litigation submitted by advocate Vishal Tiwari.

Tiwari's petition claimed that Dubey's comments were filled with derogatory language aimed at the judiciary and the Supreme Court.

On April 22, the Supreme Court Bar Association called for contempt action against Dubey, stating that his remarks were an unacceptable attack on the Supreme Court as an institution and on Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna personally.

The association urged the attorney general to take appropriate action against Dubey.

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

Dubey referenced the Supreme Court's past decisions, including the decriminalization of homosexuality in 2018 and the annulment of Section 66(a) of the Information Technology Act in 2021, to support his claims that the court was exceeding its authority.

The MP from Godda argued that the court's decision to decriminalize homosexuality was made despite opposition from all religious communities, and he cited the Trump administration's executive order recognizing only two genders as a point of reference.

Dubey also contended that Section 66(a) was essential to prevent the misuse of online platforms for sharing inappropriate content.

He criticized the Supreme Court's approach to various religious issues, stating, “When the Ram temple issue arises, you demand documents; similarly for Krishna Janmabhoomi and the Gyanvapi mosque. Yet, for mosques established after the Mughals, you claim there are no documents available.”

Furthermore, Dubey questioned how the Supreme Court could issue directives to its appointing authority, noting that the president is responsible for appointing the Chief Justice of India.

This comment was in reference to the Supreme Court's ruling on April 8, which set a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by state governors.