The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday, agreed to list for hearing next week a petition seeking criminal contempt proceedings against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey over his controversial remarks targeting the apex court and Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.

The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih.

Advocate Narendra Mishra, appearing for the petitioner, informed the Court that despite the gravity of Dubey’s statements, no action had been initiated by the Attorney General. Mishra highlighted that Dubey had allegedly held the Chief Justice responsible for “civil wars” in India, and argued that the MP’s remarks, which went viral, had led to a surge of derogatory comments against the judiciary on social media.

Mishra also submitted a formal letter before the Court, urging it to take cognizance and initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the BJP MP for his “inflammatory” and “derogatory” comments directed at both the Supreme Court and the CJI.

The issue had also been mentioned before the same bench the previous day, when the petitioner sought the court’s approval to file a contempt petition. The bench clarified that no such permission from the court was necessary for filing a contempt plea, but emphasized that the petitioner would require the Attorney General’s consent to proceed with criminal contempt under the law.

The controversy stems from Dubey’s recent interview with Asian News International (ANI), where he allegedly accused Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna of “inciting civil wars” in the country.

In response to the remarks, Advocate Anas Tanwir, representing petitioners in a separate Waqf matter, wrote to the Attorney General seeking consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings. Citing Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, along with Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, Tanwir described Dubey’s statements as “scandalous, misleading, and provocative.”

He contended that such remarks not only scandalise the judiciary but also erode public trust in the institution.