Tempers flared in the Rajya Sabha on Monday afternoon after Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh sought a clarification from the ruling party over Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s name being mentioned in the Epstein files during the debate on the President’s address, prompting sharp condemnation from the treasury benches and a brief disruption of proceedings.Singh, speaking during the discussion on the address, questioned whether the government would respond to international disclosures linked to financier Jeffrey Epstein, whose court records and associated documents have triggered political scrutiny across several countries. He argued that public interest demanded clarity whenever names of global leaders or prominent figures surfaced in such material, adding that Parliament could not remain silent on issues that carried reputational implications for the country’s leadership.
The intervention drew an immediate and forceful response from the Bharatiya Janata Party. Rajya Sabha MP Sudhanshu Trivedi rose to object, accusing the AAP leader of dragging unverified and sensational claims into what he described as the sanctity of Parliament. Trivedi said invoking the name of a convicted sex offender in the House reflected a “twisted and warped” mindset, and accused the opposition of attempting to malign the Prime Minister without evidence. His remarks were greeted with desk-thumping from BJP members, while opposition MPs protested, leading to noisy scenes.
The Chair intervened to restore order, urging members to maintain decorum and reminding them that parliamentary debate must be grounded in relevance to the motion under discussion. While allowing Trivedi to place his objection on record, the presiding officer cautioned against personal insinuations and advised members to avoid references that could not be substantiated within the framework of parliamentary rules.
The exchange came amid heightened political sensitivity around the so-called Epstein files, a broad term used for court documents, testimonies and disclosures connected to Epstein’s criminal network. Although the material has fuelled speculation internationally, there has been no judicial finding linking the Prime Minister to any wrongdoing. Government members stressed this point repeatedly, asserting that the opposition was seeking to import controversies from foreign legal proceedings into domestic politics without basis.
Opposition MPs countered that their demand was limited to seeking clarification, not levelling an accusation. Several members argued that in an era of global information flows, questions raised abroad inevitably reverberated at home, and Parliament remained an appropriate forum to seek reassurance from the executive. They accused the ruling party of attempting to shut down legitimate questions by framing them as attacks on institutions.
The incident briefly overshadowed the broader debate on the President’s address, which traditionally outlines the government’s legislative and policy agenda. Senior MPs from both sides expressed concern that such confrontations were becoming frequent, eroding the quality of deliberation in the Upper House. Parliamentary affairs officials later said the agenda was completed after order was restored, though the mood remained charged.
Outside the chamber, political reactions hardened. AAP leaders maintained that Singh’s remarks were misrepresented and insisted that transparency strengthened democratic institutions. BJP spokespersons reiterated that the Prime Minister’s name had been irresponsibly invoked, calling it an attempt to sensationalise proceedings and distract from substantive governance issues raised in the address.