Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister K. Pawan Kalyan. File | Photo credit: The Hindu
Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister K. Pawan Kalyan said the impeachment motion against the Madras High Court judge by DMK MPs in Parliament amounted to a weaponization of the Constitution and blatant political intimidation. “It was nothing but a threat to the judiciary in the name of pseudo-secularism,” he observed.
In a post on social media, he said that when the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in the Sabarimala case, which overturned a centuries-old, deeply revered custom of entering one of Hindu’s holiest sites and sparked massive social unrest and protests, no judge was impeached.
“Their decision, which fundamentally changed a fundamental religious practice, was met only with petitions for legal review, not political proposals for removal.”
Recently, when the former Chief Justice of India (CJI) publicly stated contemptuously, “Go and ask the deity itself to do something now. You say you are a faithful devotee of Lord Vishnu. So go and pray now,” he faced zero accountability.
The former CJI was not asked to apologize nor was an impeachment motion filed. In fact, when a lawyer dared to abuse the former CJI, all political parties rushed to condemn the act and strongly defended the sanctity of the judge.
What is the procedure for removing judges? | Explained
Yet today the political establishment has set a dramatically different standard. A sitting Supreme Court judge is being targeted only because he delivered a judgment that upheld the right of worshipers to light a Deepam (lamp) and practice the long-standing ritual on property legally recognized as belonging to a religious institution. The Constitution of India clearly states that judges can only be impeached on the basis of proven misconduct or incompetence.
The Deputy CM questioned why some political parties had gone to such extreme lengths to impeach a judge for a judgment that upheld the right to practice the Hindu faith.
He wondered if this was a cynical attempt to beef up and silence the wider judiciary and a signal to judges to be “careful” when deciding cases involving Hindu traditional practices and beliefs.
He argued that there is a need to establish a Sanatana DharmaRakshana Committee in Bharat where devotees actively manage their temples and religious affairs without fear of political interference or judicial overreach caused by political vendettas.
“Practicing Sanatana Dharma is not equal to being against any other religion or belief. Secularism is a two-way street and every religion must be respected and treated equally and fairly, including Hindus,” added Mr. Kalyan.
Published – 10 Dec 2025 13:29 IST
