The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Monday intensified its counterattack on the Congress party by posting an old video clip of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi questioning the judiciary’s role in political matters. The move comes in response to ongoing criticism over controversial remarks made by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey about the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India. By invoking a historical instance of Congress leadership questioning judicial conduct, the BJP seeks to portray the opposition as inconsistent and hypocritical in its stance on the judiciary’s powers.
The video shared by BJP IT Cell chief Amit Malviya features Indira Gandhi voicing her disapproval of the Justice Shah Commission, which had been established in 1977 by the Janata Party government to investigate human rights violations, administrative abuse, and the erosion of civil liberties during the Emergency period (1975–1977). In the clip, Gandhi can be heard questioning the legitimacy and scope of a judicial inquiry into political affairs.
"How does Mr. Shah know what is happening in the political world? What are the forces at work which want to destroy a developing economy? Is a judge competent to decide that? Then why have democracy? Why have elections? Why have political people in power?" she asks rhetorically in the video.
The "Mr. Shah" she refers to is Justice Jayantilal Chotilal Shah, former Chief Justice of India and the head of the commission tasked with examining Emergency-era excesses. The Shah Commission report, released in the late 1970s, was scathing in its findings, documenting widespread misuse of authority, suppression of dissent, and violation of individual rights under Gandhi’s regime. These revelations continue to shape the political discourse around the Emergency and are often cited as a cautionary tale against authoritarian governance.
By reposting Gandhi’s remarks, the BJP aimed to underscore what it perceives as a double standard in the Congress’s criticism of Nishikant Dubey. Malviya captioned the post, “Indira Gandhi – the Congress must know its own past,” implying that the Congress party once questioned judicial independence when it was politically inconvenient, yet now positions itself as a defender of the judiciary against perceived encroachments by the government.
This political flashpoint emerged after Dubey launched a vitriolic attack on the Supreme Court, particularly targeting Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna. In a sharp and controversial statement, the Jharkhand MP claimed that the CJI was “responsible for all civil wars in the country,” a comment that has drawn widespread condemnation for being inflammatory and undermining the judiciary’s constitutional authority. In another post on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), Dubey questioned the very role of the judiciary, asking rhetorically whether Parliament should be shut down if the Supreme Court is going to “make the laws.”
Dubey’s outburst came against the backdrop of a series of significant rulings by the Supreme Court, which the BJP leadership views as instances of judicial overreach. These include the Court’s directive setting a timeline for the President of India to act on state bills pending with governors, seen as a rebuke to delays in gubernatorial assent—and an interim stay on specific provisions of the Waqf Act, a sensitive law related to Islamic endowments.
The BJP, while defending Dubey, has attempted to turn the controversy into a broader political narrative, accusing the Congress of attacking the judiciary in the past when it suited them, and now conveniently taking the moral high ground. The resurfacing of Indira Gandhi’s remarks is part of this narrative strategy—to highlight that even iconic Congress leaders resisted judicial scrutiny and questioned its legitimacy in political contexts.
Critics, however, argue that the BJP’s defense of Dubey sets a dangerous precedent by trivializing the independence of the judiciary and disrespecting the constitutional separation of powers. Legal experts and opposition leaders have cautioned that such rhetoric can erode public faith in democratic institutions and embolden future encroachments on judicial autonomy.
This latest episode illustrates a deepening and complex tension between India’s legislative and judicial branches, where decisions by the courts—especially those affecting the executive or political process—are increasingly met with political backlash. While the judiciary maintains that it is acting within its constitutional mandate to uphold rights and prevent misuse of power, ruling party leaders argue that elected representatives and legislatures must retain primacy in lawmaking and governance.
As the political storm continues to brew, the use of history as a rhetorical weapon—by invoking Indira Gandhi’s critique of judicial activism—reflects how both sides are navigating a delicate balance between precedent, power, and principle in contemporary Indian politics.
