New Delhi [India], April 20 (ANI): Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has 'completely rejected' and distanced itself from controversial remarks made by the party MP Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma on the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India.

The two MPs have also been asked to refrain from making such remarks.

In a post on X, BJP National President JP Nadda said, 'The Bharatiya Janata Party has nothing to do with the statements made by BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma on the judiciary and the Chief Justice of the country. These are their personal statements, but the BJP neither agrees with nor supports such statements. The BJP completely rejects these statements.'

Nadda added, 'Bharatiya Janata Party has always respected the judiciary and gladly accepted its orders and suggestions because, as a party, we believe that all the courts of the country, including the Supreme Court, are an integral part of our democracy and are a strong pillar of the protection of the Constitution.'

He further said that both MPs and others in the party have been instructed against making similar remarks in the future. 'I have instructed both of them and everyone else not to make such statements,' he wrote.

Earlier in the day, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey alleged that the Supreme Court was 'inciting religious wars' and questioned its authority, suggesting that the Parliament building should be closed if the apex court was to make laws.

'The top court has only one aim: 'Show me the face, and I will show you the law'. The Supreme 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 told ANI.

Referring to past court decisions, Dubey criticised the judiciary for its handling of issues like the decriminalisation of homosexuality and religious disputes. 'There was an Article 377 in which homosexuality was a big crime. The Trump administration has said that there are only two sexes in this world, either male or female...Whether it is Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Jain or Sikh, all believe that homosexuality is a crime. One fine morning, the Supreme Court said that we abolish this case...Article 141 says that the laws we make, the judgments we give, are applicable from the lower court to the Supreme Court. Article 368 states that Parliament has the authority to enact all laws, and the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the law. The top court is asking the President and Governor to tell what they have to do regarding the Bills. When the Ram Mandir, Krishna Janmabhoomi, or Gyanvapi issue arises, you (SC) say, 'Show us the paper'. Mughals ke aane ke baad jo Masjid banne hai unke liye keh raho ho paper kaha se dikhao,' he added.

Dubey further alleged that the Supreme Court want to take this country towards 'anarchy.'

'How can you give direction to the appointing authority? The President appoints the Chief Justice of India. The Parliament makes the law of this country. You will dictate that Parliament?... How did you make a new law? In which law is it written that the President has to make a decision within three months? This means that you want to take this country towards anarchy. When the Parliament sits, there will be a detailed discussion on this,' he said.

Meanwhile, BJP leader Dinesh Sharma stated that no one can 'challenge' the President, as the President is 'supreme.' 'There is an apprehension among the public that when Dr BR Ambedkar wrote the Constitution, the rights of the Legislative and Judiciary were clearly written...According to the Constitution of India, no one can direct the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The President has already given her assent to it. No one can challenge the President, as the President is supreme,' Sharma told ANI.

These remarks came days after the apex court ruled on April 8 that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi's decision to withhold 10 bills and reserve them for the President's assent was 'illegal and erroneous in law' and liable to be set aside.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed that the Governor must act based on the aid and advice of the State Legislature.

The top court issued its order in response to the Tamil Nadu government's petition, which challenged the Governor's refusal to assent to bills passed by the State Assembly.

The court stated that when a bill is returned and re-enacted by the Assembly, the Governor must give assent and cannot refuse it unless the bill has been changed.

'Action of the Governor to reserve the 10 bills for the President is illegal and arbitrary, and thus the action is set aside. All actions taken by the Governor thereto for the 10 bills are set aside. The 10 bills shall be deemed to be clear from the date it was re-presented to the Governor,' the judgment stated.

The court had reserved its judgment on February 10 on the petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu government, some of which dated back to January 2020. (ANI)