Maharashtra’s Gadchiroli district police have registered a First Information Report against RJD leader and former deputy chief minister of Bihar, Tejashwi Yadav, following a complaint by Milind Ramji Narote, the Bharatiya Janata Party MLA from Gadchiroli. The FIR cites an allegedly objectionable post on X that targeted Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the lead-up to his visit to Gaya. The charges invoke the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections on promoting enmity, defamation, intentional insult meant to provoke a breach of peace, and statements causing public mischief.
Narote’s complaint underscores that the post accused the Prime Minister of delivering a “Himalaya of lies and rhetoric” in Gaya, warning that the justice-loving population, akin to social reformer Dashrath Manjhi, would dismantle that façade. The FIR reference aligns with these allegations, and identifies sections 196, 356, 352 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as relevant grounds.
This legal action in Maharashtra is not isolated. A separate FIR has been lodged in Uttar Pradesh for a different post in which Yadav referred to the Prime Minister as a “vote thief” in Gaya. That FIR, filed at Shahjahanpur’s Sadar Bazar police station, includes distinct BNS sections—353 and 197.
Taken together, these FIRs underscore how digital rhetoric now routinely crosses into legal scrutiny across state lines, especially during high-stakes political events such as Prime Minister Modi’s Gaya visit and associated development inaugurations. In Maharashtra, the FIR noted that the alleged post was shared ahead of the ceremonial launch of multiple development projects worth approximately ₹13,000 crore, including trains connecting Delhi and key Buddhist locations, underlining the wider political context.
Expert commentary remains limited in the immediate aftermath, though such developments raise pressing questions on the balance between robust political critique and potential misuse of defamation or sedition laws in the digital age. The use of multiple FIRs across states may also raise queries about jurisdiction and coordinated political litigation.
Milind Ramji Narote, an elected MLA since late 2024, clearly positioned his complaint within the broader contention about political messaging. According to publicly available data, he secured his Gadchiroli seat by a margin of over 15,000 votes. Yet, the question remains whether such legal action reflects genuine community grievances or strategic political mobilising.
Meanwhile, Tejashwi Yadav has not issued an immediate public response or legal statement addressing the FIRs, leaving clarity pending on his defence and whether he considers the posts as satirical political commentary protected under freedom of expression.
Court mandates easier voter re-inclusion access 