Union Minister Kiren Rijiju criticises retired judges’ signature campaign against HM Amit Shah
Bengaluru: Union Minister for Parliamentary Affairs and Minority Affairs, Kiren Rijiju, on Saturday, described the signature campaign initiated by retired Supreme Court judges against Union Home Minister Amit Shah as “inappropriate”.
Speaking at a gathering in Bengaluru on the topic “Parliamentary System in the Largest Democracy in the World”, Union Minister Rijiju criticised the Congress and other opposition parties.
He said that the signature campaign — launched in the backdrop of the Vice-President’s election — was “unconstitutional” and “inappropriate”.
He emphasised that the election of the Vice-President is a purely political matter and said that the retired judges’ actions have sent a concerning message: that even during their tenure, they may have been ideologically biased.
“A few retired judges wrote a letter against Amit Shah and started this campaign. They should not have interfered in the Vice-President’s election process, which is strictly political,” Rijiju reiterated.
He also named the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, and senior Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra, condemning their use of derogatory language against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his family.
“Such developments are not in the interest of the nation,” he stressed.
“We represent a party that is democratic in nature and treats opposition leaders with respect. It is inappropriate for the Opposition to use derogatory language against the Prime Minister and his mother,” Union Minister Rijiju added.
He asserted that the BJP and NDA allies always contest elections on democratic principles.
In contrast, he accused the Congress of blaming the Election Commission of India (ECI) whenever they lose elections.
“What’s the point of blaming the ECI when the people are simply not voting for the Congress?” he asked.
Unon Minister Rijiju also took a jibe at Rahul Gandhi, noting, “Rahul Gandhi has lost three parliamentary elections and is now venting his anger on the country, the people, and the Constitution. If the people aren’t voting for you, how is that our fault?”
Commenting on a proposed law that seeks to remove a Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or Minister from office in case of a 30-day imprisonment, he described it as “fair and justified”.
“If you haven’t committed a crime, you will be granted bail. Why the fear? Only those with something to hide are opposing this law,” he remarked.
He also said, “The Congress has ruled the country for 60 years. Given the current language and conduct of its leaders, people will never vote them back to power.”
During his address, Union Minister Rijiju also spoke at length about the uniqueness of India’s parliamentary system.
He highlighted its differences from the Westminster model and stressed the importance of understanding the Constitution and its spirit.
He said that India’s Constitutional system is a unique blend of Legislative, Executive, and judicial functions, where Members of Parliament can also hold Ministerial positions.
In contrast, he added that the US system does not allow Senators or Congressmen to become Ministers — Secretaries are appointed separately and are answerable to House committees.
Union Minister Rijiju noted that Indian MPs have a dual responsibility: they serve as lawmakers and also act as problem-solvers for their constituents, who frequently approach them with personal concerns and requests for help.
He acknowledged that the high expectations and constant demands from constituents can be overwhelming and require a careful balance with legislative duties.
He lamented the declining standard of discussions in Parliament, attributing it to changing times and shifting priorities.
Union Minister Rijiju emphasised the value of honesty and integrity in public life, citing his own approach to politics and governance as an example.
He also criticised the media’s current focus on sensationalism and controversy, rather than substantive issues and constructive journalism.
He concluded by underscoring the importance of the Constitution and the need to ensure justice for the common people — not only through courts but also through alternative means.
