The case names Gandhi, the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha, Purnia MP Rajesh Ranjan, popularly known as Pappu Yadav, and Samajwadi Party MP Awadhesh Prasad. It was filed at Kotwali police station on Saturday following a complaint submitted by a group of seers.
The complainants objected to a political skit performed by opposition lawmakers on Friday over allegations involving the misuse or theft of donations made to the Ram temple in Ayodhya. Police said the allegations would be examined as part of an investigation. Registration of an FIR does not establish guilt.
The complaint was submitted on behalf of the seers by Patalpuri Peethadhishwar Jagadguru Balak Devacharya. The religious leaders alleged that the performance mocked Sanatan traditions and presented sacred symbols in a manner that offended devotees.
The dispute centres largely on Yadav’s appearance at the Parliament complex dressed in saffron robes. He carried donation boxes and performed a symbolic enactment of money being taken from offerings. Opposition MPs placed currency notes into the boxes, while Yadav was shown slipping money into his clothing to illustrate their allegation of “donation theft”.
Gandhi joined the gathering alongside other opposition leaders. Prasad, who represents Faizabad, the constituency that includes Ayodhya, was also present. The protest sought a parliamentary discussion on claims concerning offerings made by worshippers at the temple.
Opposition lawmakers described the performance as political satire aimed at demanding transparency and accountability. Their campaign focused on the handling of donations rather than the faith associated with the temple. No evidence has emerged that Gandhi or the other MPs intended to insult a religious community, and their individual roles in the performance are expected to form part of the police inquiry.
The complainants took a different view, arguing that clothing associated with religious figures and the use of a donation box connected symbolically to the temple amounted to ridicule. They demanded legal action against those who participated in or supported the enactment.
The Varanasi case was followed by a separate complaint in Delhi. A Bharatiya Janata Party delegation led by New Delhi MP Bansuri Swaraj approached senior police officers seeking an FIR against Gandhi, Yadav, Prasad and other opposition lawmakers.
The delegation alleged that the performance mocked Sanatan culture and caused distress among followers. Delhi Police had not announced the registration of an FIR on that complaint at the time the Varanasi proceedings became public.
Another complaint was submitted against Yadav at Jahangirpuri police station in Delhi. The multiple complaints have widened a dispute that began as an opposition attempt to highlight financial accountability and has developed into a confrontation over religious imagery, political satire and parliamentary conduct.
Yadav, an independent MP from Bihar’s Purnia constituency, was the principal performer in the skit. He has frequently used symbolic demonstrations to raise issues inside and outside Parliament. Gandhi’s participation gave the protest greater political visibility, while Prasad’s presence carried added significance because his constituency covers the Ayodhya region.
The Ram temple was opened to worshippers in January 2024 after decades of legal and political disputes surrounding the site. Donations to the temple have since become a politically sensitive subject because of its religious importance and the large volume of offerings received from devotees.
The controversy also reflects mounting tensions during the parliamentary session. Opposition parties have protested over several issues, including alleged police action against students and demands for greater scrutiny of public institutions. Proceedings in the Lok Sabha have faced repeated disruptions as the government and opposition trade accusations over accountability and legislative debate.
Questions are also likely to arise over the distinction between criticism of the administration of a religious institution and speech considered offensive to religious belief. Courts have repeatedly examined whether complaints involving religious sentiments disclose a deliberate or malicious intention, rather than relying solely on the fact that a statement or performance caused offence.
(IPA Service)
