Mrs. Indira Jaising is a well-known and respected senior advocate, but many of her submissions and pleadings have shocked me. Yesterday in the Supreme Court, while complaining that a lady journalist had been sexually assaulted, she asked for a committee to investigate the allegations against a police officer. The reason she offered was: how could the police, who are accused of molesting a female journalist, investigate their own officer?

There is a clear distinction between an investigation, an inquiry, and an adjudication. I am appalled that lawyers and judges—including Justice Chandrachud, Justice Oka, and Mrs. Jaising—fail to recognize this distinction. An investigation can only be conducted by the police; no one else can carry it out.

When I moved the Supreme Court seeking the registration of an FIR and an investigation into the incident of burnt cash found at the residence of Justice Varma, Justice Oka stated that the Chief Justice had constituted a committee, that the committee should complete its investigation and submit a report, and that the Chief Justice could then consider various options.

If a police officer is accused of molesting a journalist during the protest on October 10, the proper course of action—and what Ms. Jaising should advise her client—is to go to the police station, lodge a complaint, and insist on the registration of an FIR. If no FIR is registered, she can move the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned. It is impermissible instead to approach the Supreme Court asking for a committee to be constituted, let alone one headed by a former High Court or Supreme Court judge, a retired IPS officer, and a civil society member. It is unbelievable. Investigation is the job of the police; no committee can do that.

During the 2024 NEET paper leak case, Chief Justice Chandrachud, instead of directing the police to investigate and leaving the question of whether the examination should be cancelled to the government, summoned police officers to the court and proceeded to adjudicate, failing to notice the distinction between investigation, inquiry, and adjudication.

Similarly, a fundamental question goes unasked, even by the Solicitor General: to whom is the executive accountable in matters of governance and law enforcement? Is it accountable to the courts or to Parliament? The executive is accountable to Parliament, to the people whom Parliament symbolically represents.

Therefore, leaders like Rahul Gandhi should demand a parliamentary debate to hold the government accountable. If Prashant Bhushan wants a regime change, that must occur through constitutional and parliamentary means. The government’s existence depends every minute on the confidence of the House—the Lok Sabha. That is the fundamental principle of constitutional law. If the Opposition sways enough Members of Parliament, the government would lose its majority. That is what parliamentary democracy means. Sibal, Singhvi, Bhushan, Jaising, and their ilk have hijacked the Supreme Court. The court hears them alone. Cases of ordinary lawyers are all dismissed in 93 seconds. And there is none to stand against the dynasties of lawyers and judges who have hijacked the Supreme Court.