Once again, controversial advocate Kapil Sibal who was earlier with Congress and is currently a Rajya Sabha MP with Samajwadi support has secured a stay on the release of Udaipur Files, a film based on the gruesome 2022 murder of Kanhaiya Lal, the Udaipur tailor killed for supporting Nupur Sharma. On the eleventh hour, just a day before its scheduled release, the Delhi High Court halted the film’s screening after Sibal urged a judicial review, describing it as “vicious” and “cinematic vandalism” with potential to inflame communal passions.
Ironically, while the film faces a ban within days, justice for Kanhaiya Lal’s family remains elusive even three years after the killing. His son voiced frustration, pointing out that those responsible for the murder still haven’t faced consequences.
This is hardly the first instance of Sibal being accused of siding with Islamist causes under the pretext of legal advocacy. Time and again, Sibal has stood for clients and causes that undermine Hindu interests or block reforms that benefit the larger society.
Sibal’s Track Record A Pattern Of Prioritising Islamist Causes
One of the most well-known instances of Sibal’s alleged legal partisanship was his representation of the Sunni Waqf Board in the Ram Janmabhoomi case. Not only did he oppose the construction of the Ram Temple, but he also urged the Supreme Court to delay its judgment until after the 2019 general elections arguably to prevent the BJP from gaining political mileage. Despite his efforts, the 2019 SC ruling upheld the construction of the temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya.
In 2024, during the Pran Pratishtha ceremony of Lord Ram in Ayodhya, Sibal trivialized the event, calling it a “show-off,” and claimed that “Lord Ram lives in his heart” comments that attracted widespread criticism.
Defending The Waqf Monopoly Against Reforms
Even after the Waqf Amendment Act (UMEED Act) passed through both Houses and received presidential assent, Sibal jumped into action again this time representing Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind in challenging the legislation. The Chief Justice of India rebuked him and fellow senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi for bypassing procedure.
Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, known for defending Muslims accused in terror cases, has facilitated the legal defense of hundreds of accused individuals, resulting in numerous acquittals—often due to lack of evidence rather than proof of innocence. The organisation also represented accused in the anti-Hindu Nuh violence case and has repeatedly demanded exclusive laws to protect Muslim sentiments.
Taking The Islamists Side To Deny Rights For Muslim Women
Kapil Sibal’s opposition to reforms continued in the Shayara Bano v. Union of India case, where he represented the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). In court, he argued in favor of preserving instant Triple Talaq, suggesting religious customs outweigh constitutional safeguards like gender equality.
Among his arguments, “Triple talaq has existed for 1400 years, so it cannot be unconstitutional,” and “If Hindus believe in Lord Ram’s birth in Ayodhya, Muslims should be allowed to believe in Triple Talaq.” These arguments placed religious orthodoxy above legal progress. Thankfully, the Supreme Court struck down the practice in 2017, and the Modi government criminalized it in 2019.
Hadiya Case And PFI Links
Sibal also represented Shafin Jahan in the controversial Hadiya case, which many saw as a case of “Love Jihad.” Akhila, a Hindu woman, converted to Islam and adopted the name Hadiya before marrying a Muslim man named Shafin Jahan. Her father, a retired soldier from the Indian Army, claimed the marriage was a case of love jihad. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Jahan, affirming Hadiya’s autonomy as an adult to decide her faith and life partner.
Reports later revealed that the now-banned Islamist outfit PFI funded the case, paying nearly ₹94 lakh to senior lawyers including Sibal. In 2020, the ED named Sibal in its probe into PFI’s finances, stating he received ₹77 lakh as legal fees.
Defending PFI And Riots-Linked Accused
Sibal has also advocated for Siddique Kappan, arrested in connection with alleged PFI-led efforts to stoke unrest following the Hathras incident. Later, he represented Umar Khalid, an accused mastermind in the Delhi riots, but his repeated adjournment tactics and forum shopping attempts were called out in court, with former CJI Chandrachud himself reportedly intervening.
Downplaying Islamist Hate Speech
In 2022, Sibal claimed in court that BJP MP Parvesh Verma called for a Muslim boycott despite there being no direct mention of any community. At the same time, he denied knowledge of Muslim hate speech, ignoring speeches by AIMIM leaders and other clerics inciting violence against Hindus.
Defending Pro-Pakistan Figures And Opposing Article 370 Abrogation
Sibal’s legal clients have also included Mohammad Akbar Lone, the National Conference MP who raised “Pakistan Zindabad” slogans in the J&K Assembly. When the Supreme Court heard challenges to the abrogation of Article 370, Sibal sought a “Brexit-style referendum” in Kashmir a demand dismissed outright by the bench.
Apathy In RG Kar Medical College Rape Case
In another instance, during hearings into the brutal rape and murder of a woman in Kolkata’s RG Kar Medical College, Sibal tried to halt live-streaming of proceedings. He argued that the reputations of lawyers were at risk drawing backlash for seemingly prioritising optics over justice. He even blamed the victim’s parents for FIR delays and was accused of laughing during hearings allegations he denied.
Kapil Sibal Lead Impeachment Against Allahabad HC Judge For Calling Islamic Extremist ‘Kathmulla’
Kapil Sibal, along with several other Rajya Sabha members, initiated an impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court over remarks he made describing Islamic extremists as “Kathmulla.” The motion, filed in December 2024 with the Rajya Sabha Secretary-General, cited Justice Yadav’s controversial comments made at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad gathering. The delegation behind the motion was led by Sibal and included fellow parliamentarians Vivek Tankha, Digvijaya Singh, P. Wilson, John Brittas, KTS Tulsi, Manoj Kumar Jha, and Saket Gokhale.
During his speech, Justice Yadav had remarked, “These kathmullahs… perhaps not the best term… but I won’t shy away from using it. They are dangerous for the nation, work against national interests, and provoke unrest. They are the ones obstructing progress, and we must remain alert to their actions.”
The impeachment motion accused the judge of violating the secular values enshrined in the Constitution and breaching his judicial oath. Following the controversy, his case assignments were altered by the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, effective 16 December. Additionally, the Supreme Court Collegium summoned him for an explanation after taking suo motu cognizance of the matter on 10 December. Ultimately, in January 2025, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought his removal from office.
‘Assam Originally Was A Part Of Myanmar’ Comment
In 2023, Sibal stirred controversy by telling the Supreme Court that Assam was historically part of Myanmar while defending Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind in a case challenging Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. His claim triggered outrage for historical inaccuracy and insensitivity.
During the Supreme Court hearing on 5 December concerning the constitutional challenge to Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, Kapil Sibal made a contentious historical claim regarding Assam’s past. Arguing against the feasibility of tracing migration patterns, Sibal stated that tracking who migrated into Assam and when was nearly impossible.
He remarked, “No migration can ever be mapped. And if you look at the history of Assam, you will realise that it is impossible to figure out who came when. Assam originally was a part of Myanmar. And it was way back in 1824 after the British conquered part of the territory that a treaty was entered into by which Assam was handed over to the British. One can imagine the kind of movements of people that must have taken place in the context of the then British Empire. And if you jump to 1905, you have the partition of Bengal.”
Ganesh Chaturthi On Waqf Land? Sibal Says No
When the Karnataka Waqf Board sought to block Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations at Bengaluru’s Idgah Maidan, Sibal again represented them in court. He warned that Hindu festivities on Waqf land could “provoke” Muslims and hurt communal harmony. His argument was that letting Hindus perform rituals there would “alter the character of the land” a stance many viewed as openly favouring Muslim hegemony over disputed spaces.
A Dereacinated Delusional Defender Of Islamists
Kapil Sibal’s long career as a lawyer and politician reveals a troubling pattern one where legal representation seems to blur into ideological activism. From defending practices like Triple Talaq and obstructing Hindu religious claims, to siding with those accused of instigating riots or receiving terror-linked funding, Sibal’s advocacy often appears aligned with elite Islamist interests.
While judicial activism has its place in a healthy democracy, but Sibal’s consistent siding with controversial Islamist figures and his opposition to legislative or judicial actions promoting Hindu rights raises serious concerns. His recent opposition to the Waqf Act amendments once again underlines a deeper allegiance—one that critics argue is less about law and more about preserving a privileged, unaccountable structure that works against national unity.
Kapil Sibal may claim to be a champion of secularism and democracy. But his legal choices paint the portrait of a man who repeatedly shields those exploiting religious privilege—often at the expense of justice, reform, and Hindu interests.
(With Inputs From OpIndia)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.