Singhvi on nishikant dubey remarks: Congress leaders have reacted strongly to BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s statement about the Supreme Court. Congress spokesperson and Rajya Sabha MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi described it as derogatory and incredible.

Singhvi raised the question that if not every decision is not in favor of the government, is it justified to attack the judiciary? He has demanded the Attorney General to allow contempt action against the BJP MP without delay.

Singhvi attacked Nishikant Dubey
Abhishek Singhvi said, “It seems as if the Supreme Court and his Chief Justice are now only target for BJP leaders. Dubey’s remarks are directly insulted by the court. According to him, only the decisions in favor of the government are correct.” He further said, “Every day new attacks are being carried out on the court. Will we stop discussing these attacks now? The truth is that the Supreme Court is being targeted. Hopefully, the calm Attorney General will consent to criminal contempt without delay”

Congress leaders expressed displeasure
Congress leader Kunwar Danish Ali said, “Nishikant Dubey gives such statements. At the same time, Congress leader Tariq Anwar said, “People like Dubey want civil war in the country. Our goal is to decide the Supreme Court based on justice and not on strength.”

BJP leader defended
BJP’s West Bengal leader Agnimitra Paul defended Dubey, saying, “What Dubey said is correct. When President appoints CJI, how can CJI refuse the President’s decision? If the Supreme Court will run the country, what is the need of Parliament?”

What did Nishikant Dubey say?
Nishikant Dubey, while talking to the media on April 19, 2025, said, “If the court will make a law, Parliament should be closed. The Supreme Court is causing a civil war in this country.” He also said, “Show me face, I will show you the law – this has now become the policy of the Supreme Court.” Dubey described India’s Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna responsible for the “civil war -like situation” in the country.

Supreme Court former Judge: A new constitutional debate has erupted in the country regarding the Waqf Amendment Act 2025. The validity of this law has been challenged in the Supreme Court and during the hearing on it, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey made a controversial statement about Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna. Dubey said that “The Supreme Court is responsible for inciting religious civil war in the country.”

To this, former Supreme Court Judge Ashok Kumar Ganguly reacted sharply, saying, “No one is above the law. It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to protect the basic spirit of the Constitution.”

What did the former judge of the Supreme Court say?

The former judge of the Supreme Court said, “Our country is secular. It is the job of the Supreme Court to protect the basic spirit of the Constitution, that is why the Supreme Court has put some questions before the government regarding the Waqf Act. After this, the government has come on the backfoot and he said that it will not implement some sections of the Act. According to Article 53 of the Constitution, the President should work according to the constitution, if the President should work, if the Supreme Court can give a democracy in it, it is not wrong. It is strong. It is unfortunate to understand that no one is above the law.

#Watch Kolkata, West Bengal: on BJP mp nishikant dubey’s statement on the Supreme Court, Former Supreme Court Judge Ashok Kumar Ganguly Says, “Oor CONTRY IS A Secular One … The Tasked Top Safeguard the essence of our constitution, which is why, the sc has put some… pic.twitter.com/vbedlpgvy0

– ANI (@ani) April 19, 2025

What did BJP leader Nishikant Dubey say?
BJP MP Nishikant Dubey said that if the court makes a law, then Parliament should be closed. He said, “Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna is responsible for all the civil wars happening in this country.” Citing Article 141 and Article 368, he argued that Article 368 gives Parliament the right to enact laws. Under Article 141, the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts, but this does not mean that the Supreme Court can enact a law.

Questions raised on appointments also
The BJP MP questioned, “When it comes to Ram temple, Gyanvapi or Krishna Janmabhoomi, the Supreme Court asks for paper, but does not do this for Waqf properties?” Dubey also asked how the Supreme Court can direct the President to decide on the bills.

The legal and moral debate between the Supreme Court and Parliament over the Waqf Act has once again brought the roles of India’s democracy and institutions to the center of debate. The former judge of the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the constitution is supreme and no person, institution or position, no matter how high it is, cannot be above the law.

Nishikant dubey on waqf law hearing: The Supreme Court is being heard in the Supreme Court regarding the passed Waqf Amendment Act 2025 of Parliament. Politics is also at its peak regarding the matter. Even after the law is enacted on Waqf, it cannot be implemented right now. BJP MP Nishikant Dubey has removed his anger on Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna regarding the matter. He said that Sanjeev Khanna is responsible for the civil wars in the country.

BJP leader Nishikant Dubey alleged on Saturday (April 19) that the Supreme Court is responsible for inciting religious wars in the country. He said that if the Supreme Court has to enact a law, then the Parliament House should be closed. Dubey said in a conversation with the media, “The Supreme Court has only one objective: ‘Show me face, I will show you the law.’ The Supreme Court is going beyond its borders. If you have to go to the Supreme Court for everything, then the Parliament and the state assembly should be closed. ” BJP MP Dubey said, “Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna is responsible for all the civil wars happening in this country.”

Supreme Court on Waqf Amendment Bill 2025: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 16, 2025) started hearing on petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The bench of Chief Justice (CJI) Sanjeev Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Vishwanathan is hearing the case. The court did not pass any interim order and will resume the hearing on Thursday, 17 April.

Ten petitions were listed in front of the back. More than 15 petitions have been filed by religious institutions, members of Parliament, political parties, states challenging the 2025 Act. Five BJP -led states: Assam, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Haryana and Maharashtra have filed intervention applications supporting this law. On April 8, the Center filed a cavity in the Supreme Court requesting that no order be passed without listening to its side.

Supreme Court’s big comments during today’s hearing

1- During Wednesday’s debate, CJI Khanna expressed concern about how some properties have been classified as Waqf. Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna said, “We have been told that the Delhi High Court building is on the land of Waqf, Oberoi Hotel is on the land of Waqf.

2- Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, presented his arguments. He argued that under Islamic law, the inheritance comes only after death and the government is now trying to intervene before that. Reacting to Sibal’s remarks, CJI Khanna said, “But this happens in Hindus. So Parliament has enacted a law for Muslims. It may not be like a law for Hindus. Article 26 will not stop making laws in this case. Article 26 is universal and it is secular in the sense that it applies to all.”

3- During his arguments, Sibal cited the provision (Section 3C), according to which, the property identified as government property will not be a Waqf property and the government’s authority will decide the dispute. Sibal then mentioned Section 3D, which calls the construction of Waqf invalid on the preserved monuments from ASI. On this, the CJI said that according to the provision, if property was a protected monument at the time of construction of Waqf, then such Waqf would be invalid. CJI Khanna asked, “How many such cases will be there?” Sibal replied, “Jama Masjid.” However, the CJI said that the Jama Masjid was later notified as a protected monument.

According to Live Law, the CJI said, “I think the interpretation is in your favor. If it is declared a Waqf before declaring it an ancient monument, it will not make any difference. It will remain a vaqf, you should not object until it can be declared Waqf after declaring it preserved. Most of the monuments, ancient mosques, will not be affected by this section.”

4- Sibal also talked about Section 9, 14 related to the nomination of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Parishad and State Waqf boards. Sibal said that this is a direct violation of Article 26. Sibal argued that the central law related to Sikhs and Hindu religious settlement related to gurdwaras and many state laws related to laws do not allow people of other religions to include people. Sibal also objected to the provisions that make registration mandatory. CJI asked, “What’s wrong with this?” Sibal said that at present, a Waqf can be made by the user without registration.

The CJI said, “You can register the Waqf, which will also help you to maintain the register.” Justice Vishwanathan also said, “If you have a deed then there will be no fake or false claim.” Sibal said, “They will ask us whether a Waqf was created 300 years ago and will ask to present its documents. Many of these assets were made hundreds of years ago and they will not have any documents.”

5- On behalf of the Center, India’s Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasized that the law was enacted after a practice by the Joint Parliamentary Committee. He said that both houses of Parliament passed the bill after a long debate. While the debate continued, the CJI pointed to the provision related to disputes with the government and asked why the property should not be considered until the dispute was settled.

The CJI said, “Why will this waqf not live? Let the civil court decide it.” The CJI asked, “Mr. Tushar Mehta, tell us. If the Waqf-Bai-Uzer was accepted before the 2025 Act, is it now declared zero or existential?”

6- The CJI also sought clarity about the conditions that the property should not be disputed. The CJI said, “We did not have any registration before the British arrive. Many mosques are built in the 14th or 15th century. It is impossible to present them to submit the registered documents. In most cases, such as Jama Masjid Delhi, Waqf By user will be Waqf.”

7- The Chief Justice also questioned Mehta about the provision made in Section 2A, which states that despite any decision of the court, the property of the trust will not come under the purview of the Waqf Act. The CJI said, “You cannot declare any decision or order of the Legislative Court zero, you can remove the basis of the law but you cannot declare any decision binding.”

8- CJI Khanna also asked about the provisions allowing for enrollment of non-Muslim members in Waqf boards. The CJI asked, “When we sit here to take a decision, we forget our religion. We are talking about a board that is managing religious matters. Suppose in the Hindu temple, all Hindus in the Governor Council are all Hindus. How are you comparing with judges?”

9- The CJI also expressed concern over the provision of Section 2A. CJI Khanna said, “Where the public trust has been declared a Waqf, suppose 100 or 200 years ago, you turn back and say that it is not a waqf. You cannot write the past 100 years ago!”

10- During the hearing, Tushar Mehta said that a large section of Muslims does not want to be governed by the Waqf Act. On this, the CJI asked whether you are saying that now Muslims will also be included in the Hindu Entry Board? Just say it clearly.

Also read: ‘Apart from ex -officio officials in Waqf Board, Muslim members should be only’, Supreme Court comments

Action on judge yashwant verma: Supreme Court Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna has formed a committee of 3 judges to investigate the allegations against Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Verma. The members of this committee are Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhavalia and Karnataka High Court Judge Anu Shivraman.

Justice Yashwant Verma will not be able to do judicial work

This information has been given in the press release issued by the Supreme Court. According to the release, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court has been asked not to give any judicial work to Justice Yashwant Verma at the moment. In the press release issued by the Supreme Court, it has also been told that the report of the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, the reply of Justice Yashwant Verma and other documents are being uploaded on the Supreme Court website regarding this matter.

Supreme Court constituted investigation committee

Justice Yashwant Verma is in controversies about the news of a huge amount of cash being received at his house. Now the Supreme Court has formed a formal inquiry committee. The formation of the investigation committee is the first phase of the process of removing a judge from the post. If the investigation committee finds the allegations against the judge correct, its report is sent to the Parliament, where a proposal to remove the judge is brought.

Recently, there was a fire at the house of Justice Yashwant Verma. At that time the judges were not present at the house. The family informed the fire brigade and the police. After extinguishing the fire, while taking stock of the damage, the employees found a large amount of cash in a room. This information reached the top police officers. He further conveyed this information to the Union Home Ministry.

Also read: ‘Only Hindus should work in Tirumala’, CM Naidu spoke on the transapper of 18 employees from Tirupati temple