Impeachment for UCC, but silence on corruption: Opposition’s selective morality over justices Yadav and Verma exposed
A political storm has erupted over the alleged double standards of opposition MPs in handling judicial matters, as contrasting responses to cases involving two High Court judges—Justice Shekhar Yadav and Justice Yashwant Verma—have drawn widespread public attention and criticism.
Opposition MPs have strongly demanded the impeachment of Justice Shekhar Yadav following his alleged communal remarks during a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event in December 2024. Justice Yadav was reported to have said, “This is Hindustan, and the country will run according to the majority,” while also supporting the Uniform Civil Code and criticizing certain Muslim community practices.
A total of 54 Rajya Sabha MPs, including members from the Congress, TMC, AAP, RJD, and other parties, signed an impeachment notice against him. However, discrepancies surfaced in the notice, with nine mismatched signatures and one MP’s signature appearing twice. Despite this, prominent leaders like Kapil Sibal have continued to push the demand, even threatening to approach the Supreme Court if the Vice President does not act on the notice.
In stark contrast, the same leaders have remained silent in the case of Justice Yashwant Verma, who faces serious allegations of corruption. In March 2025, a fire at his government residence in Delhi led firefighters to discover a large cache of burnt currency notes in a private storeroom accessible only to his family.
A Supreme Court committee comprising three judges submitted a 64-page report confirming the presence of the notes and claimed that Justice Verma and his private secretary attempted to influence fire officials to suppress the incident.
Despite the severity of the allegations, Justice Verma has neither resigned nor been assigned judicial work. The Supreme Court has recommended his dismissal, and impeachment proceedings are expected to begin soon. Nevertheless, opposition MPs, particularly Kapil Sibal, have defended him. Sibal praised Justice Verma as “one of the finest judges in the country” and accused the government of attempting to dismantle the collegium system.
Critics argue that this discrepancy in responses reflects the opposition’s selective approach driven by political convenience rather than principle. While the issue involving Justice Yadav has been framed as a communal concern, the silence over Justice Verma’s alleged corruption suggests a lack of consistent commitment to judicial integrity, observers say.
Social media users have also highlighted the apparent hypocrisy. “When a judge makes a communal remark, impeachment is demanded; but when cash is found at a judge’s home, he’s called the best,” one user wrote on X. Another remarked, “The opposition doesn’t mind corruption, they just need an issue to attack the government.”
Analysts believe that such selective outrage undermines the credibility of opposition parties and raises questions about their real priorities. “If political leaders genuinely want to uphold the judiciary’s independence and fight corruption, they must adopt a consistent stance across all cases, regardless of ideology,” a former judge noted.
As Parliament prepares to address both cases, the contrast in political reactions continues to fuel debate over ethics, impartiality, and the true motivations behind calls for judicial accountability.
News