NEW DELHI: BJP Member of Parliament Nishikant Dubey, who recently received relief from the Supreme Court after a petition against him was dismissed, has once again landed in controversy. This time, the matter involves the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information and Technology that he heads.
The controversy stems from an office memorandum reportedly issued by the committee to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), asking for details about content circulating on social media platforms that, according to the letter, poses a threat to national security and could potentially incite violence. The memorandum alleges that some material on these platforms is detrimental to national interest.
The memorandum has sought report on the contents of the social media that deal with the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack by May 8.
However, constitutional and parliamentary experts have strongly criticized this move. A former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha and a leading authority on parliamentary procedures called the issuance of such a directive "completely illegal and irrelevant." He stated that standing committees are not empowered to issue suo motu directions to ministries unless a related matter is formally under their consideration.
The office memorandum issued by Dubey as chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on information technology says "the undersigned is directed to state that post terror attack in Pahalgam on 22 April, 2025, some social media influencers and social media platforms in the country seem to be working against the interest of the country which is likely to incite violence."
The memorandum says: "The concerned ministries i.e. Ministry of Electronics and IT and ministry of Information & Broadcasting are requested to provide contemplated action taken to ban such platform....The desired information may be furnished to this committee by 8 May 2025 positively."
"The mandate of parliamentary standing committees is consultative, not executive," the expert emphasized. "They examine matters referred to them by the House or Speaker and submit reports for parliamentary consideration. No committee can independently order the executive branch to act on issues not under formal review."
Other experts echoed these concerns, pointing out that all parliamentary committees are accountable to Parliament itself. They cannot bypass established procedure or attempt to direct the executive. The standard process requires the committee to deliberate on matters formally placed before it, and any conclusions or recommendations must be compiled into a report and submitted to Parliament for further discussion or policy formulation.
This latest episode has reignited criticism of Nishikant Dubey, a BJP MP from Jharkhand known for his contentious public statements. He had previously triggered a political firestorm during an interview with news agency ANI, in which he controversially accused Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna of inciting communal tensions. Dubey made these remarks while criticizing the Supreme Court's intervention in matters related to the Waqf Act, recently amended by Parliament.
His comments came in the wake of communal unrest in parts of West Bengal, where violence during religious processions resulted in several casualties. Opposition leaders accused Dubey of attempting to communalize the issue and undermine the judiciary. The BJP distanced itself from his remarks, calling them his "personal opinion" and attempting to defuse the tension.
Adding fuel to the fire, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar also stirred debate by questioning the judiciary's authority to impose timelines on the implementation of laws passed by state legislatures. Dhankhar went further to assert parliamentary supremacy over constitutional heads like the President, drawing sharp reactions from legal experts and opposition leaders alike.
These developments have reignited a larger debate on the balance of power between the legislature and judiciary in India. As Parliament continues to assert its primacy, concerns are being raised about adherence to constitutional boundaries and the implications for institutional integrity.
The unfolding controversy places both the ruling party and parliamentary oversight mechanisms under the scanner, raising critical questions about procedural propriety and democratic accountability.
Have you liked the news article?