Will Parliament Run on the Agenda of a Single Lawyer-MP? A High-Stakes Judicial-Political Battle Unfolds

Credit: The New Indian Express

New Delhi: A storm is brewing in Delhi’s power corridors over a critical question: Will Parliament function according to the personal agenda of one lawyer-turned-MP? This debate comes amid a high-stakes judicial-political showdown marked by daily twists and rising tensions between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature.

At the heart of this controversy are two judges and one influential parliamentarian. On one side is Justice Yashwant Verma, embroiled in a sensational “cash burn” scandal. On the other is Justice Shekhar Yadav, facing an impeachment notice for alleged communal remarks — pending for over seven months. Standing between them is Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal, now at the center of an escalating political war.

The Trigger: Kapil Sibal vs. Kiren Rijiju

The row erupted when Kapil Sibal suggested that the Opposition should not support the government’s move against Justice Verma unless an inquiry begins against Justice Yadav. His statement infuriated Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, who retaliated sharply, branding Sibal an “average lawyer” and asserting that “Parliament will not run on the personal agenda of one MP.”

In a media interview, Rijiju accused Sibal of being driven by “personal motives,” delivering sermons to MPs, and behaving as if he alone knows the law. He added that Parliament has many members “far more intellectual and knowledgeable” than Sibal. Rijiju emphasized that all political parties are united on the motion to remove Justice Verma, declaring corruption in the judiciary “an extremely sensitive and serious matter.”

Two Judges, Two Motions — and Two Government Tones

Adding to public confusion, two senior ministers have taken visibly different positions.

• Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal adopted a measured stance, clarifying that impeachment is “the prerogative of MPs, not the government,” and that Parliament is the sole constitutional forum for removing a judge. He reiterated that Justice Verma has the right to challenge the inquiry report in court, and MPs can move motions as per their constitutional rights.
• In contrast, Kiren Rijiju maintained this is not merely an MP’s matter but a national issue, accusing Sibal of selectively defending one judge while attacking another.

The Verma Controversy: From Fire to Fortune

The scandal involving Justice Yashwant Verma exploded in March 2025, when a fire broke out at his Delhi residence, leading to a shocking discovery: charred sacks of unaccounted currency notes. A Supreme Court in-house committee conducted an inquiry, examined 55 witnesses, and concluded that the judge and his family exercised direct or indirect control over the outhouse where the cash was found.

The panel’s findings prompted then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna to write to the President and Prime Minister, recommending Verma’s removal. Verma has since challenged the report in the Supreme Court, seeking to quash it.

The Yadav Case: Hate Speech Allegations and Delay

Meanwhile, Justice Shekhar Yadav faces allegations of delivering a communal speech in violation of his judicial oath and constitutional norms. In December 2024, 55 Rajya Sabha MPs signed an impeachment notice against him. However, the motion has remained pending for over seven months with no inquiry initiated.
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has questioned the delay, saying, “If the process against one judge is moving so fast, why is the other case stalled?”

Selective Action or Equal Standards?

This is the crux of the Opposition’s argument: why is there quick action against Verma but silence on Yadav? Sibal insists that both cases must be treated with equal standards before the Opposition supports any impeachment. Rijiju dismisses this as an excuse, accusing Sibal of “shielding one judge while targeting another.”

Beyond Politics: What’s at Stake?

The controversy goes beyond individuals. It raises fundamental questions about:

• Judicial accountability
• Parliamentary independence
• Public trust in the judiciary

When judges’ homes are linked to unaccounted cash or they make divisive public remarks, mere inquiries are insufficient—visible action is imperative. Judicial integrity is the bedrock of democracy; its erosion threatens constitutional governance.

The Road Ahead

With the Monsoon Session beginning July 21, the big question is:
Will Parliament ensure institutional accountability or will this saga turn into another political theater?
The people demand fairness:

• If a judge is guilty, act based on evidence.
• If a judge violates constitutional norms, ensure accountability.

But the guiding principle must be the Constitution—not the personal agenda of any individual.