A First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged against Congress MP Rahul Gandhi in Guwahati, Assam, for his controversial remark about the ‘Indian state.’ The complaint, filed at the Pan Bazar Police Station, accuses Gandhi of endangering India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity.
The FIR was registered under Sections 152 and 197(1)d of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for actions deemed harmful to the nation’s sovereignty.
Details of the Complaint
The complaint, filed by Monjit Chetia, alleges that Gandhi’s statement “crossed the limits of permissible free speech.” Chetia claimed that Gandhi’s remarks incited rebellion and posed a significant threat to national security and public order.
The complaint further states:
- Gandhi’s statement undermines the authority of the state.
- His words could provoke separatist sentiments and unrest.
- He is accused of using his platform to delegitimize the government.
“By declaring his fight against the ‘Indian state,’ Rahul Gandhi has consciously incited subversive activities and attempted to portray the state as hostile,” said the complainant.
Political Context
Rahul Gandhi, who represents Rae Bareli in the Lok Sabha, made the remark during the inauguration of the Congress’ new headquarters in Delhi. His statement was reportedly in response to RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat’s comment about India’s ‘true independence.’
The complaint also claims Gandhi’s remarks stemmed from frustration over the Congress’ repeated electoral losses. “Having failed to gain public trust through democratic means, he now seeks to provoke rebellion against the government,” Chetia stated.
Implications of the FIR
This legal action could add to the ongoing political tensions between the ruling BJP and the opposition Congress. The incident has sparked debates over free speech, the responsibilities of political leaders, and the limits of political rhetoric.
A Call for Responsible Leadership
The complaint concludes with a call for accountability, emphasizing that as the Leader of the Opposition, Gandhi has a responsibility to uphold public confidence in democratic institutions rather than “spread falsehoods and provoke unrest.”
