The First Information Report followed a complaint by Siddaraju, a member of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee legal cell. Police have begun efforts to identify the people controlling the accounts and remove the disputed content from the platform.
The case centres on a 30-second video uploaded on July 16 by an account named “ground. reality_india”. The post displayed Gandhi’s photograph and allegedly contained sexually explicit, derogatory and insulting language directed at the Congress leader.
The video carried the caption, “Why is the Opposition party so silent?” The complainant alleged that its language was intended to humiliate Gandhi, damage his reputation and undermine the dignity of an elected representative holding a constitutional parliamentary position.
Siddaraju told police that he encountered the material while browsing Instagram on July 25. The FIR was registered on July 27 after investigators examined the complaint and the digital material submitted with it.
Police have also named the Instagram accounts “raashtravaadhi2” and “manvithamanojsamanvi” over comments allegedly posted beneath the video. The complaint said the responses included obscene slurs, sexually derogatory expressions and provocative remarks.
Some of the disputed comments allegedly used language offensive to women while attacking Gandhi personally. Investigators are examining the complete conversation surrounding the post, including comments by other users who may not yet have been identified.
The case has been registered under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, which covers the publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form. Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, concerning intentional insult intended to provoke a breach of peace, has also been invoked.
No arrests have been announced. The allegations have not been tested in court, and the people controlling the named accounts have not been publicly identified or given an opportunity to respond through the investigation.
Police are expected to seek registration information, internet protocol records and other technical details from Instagram’s parent company Meta. Such information can help establish whether the accounts were operated by individuals, coordinated groups or users employing concealed or false identities.
Investigators must also preserve the disputed posts, comments and associated metadata before deletion. Digital material can be edited, removed or made inaccessible, making timely preservation important for determining who uploaded it and whether it was subsequently shared through other accounts.
A senior police officer said steps had been initiated to have the video deleted and that attempts were under way to trace its administrator. The inquiry may expand if investigators find that additional users created, circulated or deliberately amplified the material.
The complaint reflects growing scrutiny of personal abuse directed at political figures on social media. Political criticism, parody and strongly worded disagreement are generally part of democratic debate, but criminal questions arise when posts are alleged to contain obscenity, threats, fabricated claims or language intended to provoke violence or disorder.
Courts have repeatedly underlined the need to balance freedom of expression with legal protections against defamation, harassment and unlawful electronic content. Investigators must therefore assess the precise words, context, intention and reach of the material rather than treating every offensive political comment as a criminal offence.
The Bengaluru case also raises questions about accountability for comments placed beneath content created by another user. Police will have to distinguish between the person who uploaded the original video and those who independently posted allegedly unlawful responses.
The identity of an account holder cannot always be established from a username. Investigators commonly examine linked telephone numbers, email addresses, devices, login histories and network records. They may also study whether the accounts changed names, deleted posts or attempted to conceal activity after the complaint was filed.
Gandhi, who represents Rae Bareli in the Lok Sabha, has faced sustained personal attacks across social media platforms alongside criticism of his political positions. Congress leaders have increasingly approached police and technology companies over posts they describe as defamatory, manipulated or threatening.
(IPA Service)
