Now Reading: Delhi Police registers FIR after Rahul Gandhi’s five-hour dharna
-
01
Delhi Police registers FIR after Rahul Gandhi’s five-hour dharna
Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, along with Congress leaders Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Randeep Surjewala and Jairam Ramesh, staged a five-hour sit-in protest outside the Parliament Street Police Station in New Delhi…
Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, along with Congress leaders Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Randeep Surjewala and Jairam Ramesh, staged a five-hour sit-in protest outside the Parliament Street Police Station in New Delhi on Friday. The protest demanded an FIR for Sahil Lochab, a 19-year-old who alleged he was hit by pellet guns during student protests at Jantar Mantar on July 20. Delhi Police subsequently registered an FIR against unknown persons, despite earlier saying the matter was sub judice under a Supreme Court-appointed committee.
Gandhi accused Union Home Minister Amit Shah of delaying the FIR, saying police needed approval from the top. Union Minister JP Nadda slammed Gandhi's protest as "camera-centric drama". Former Union Minister Smriti Irani criticised Gandhi's move as a diversion from the Vande Mataram controversy. National Herald reported the Congress accused the BJP of communalising the issue, while Times Now reported sources said the police were forced to act by Gandhi's sit-in.
Lochab reportedly has over 200 pellets lodged in his body, has lost vision in one eye, and has pellets near his heart that cannot be removed. The Supreme Court has formed a five-member committee headed by former judge Justice R Subhash Reddy to examine police excesses against student protesters.
Indian Opinion Analysis
Pro-government sources (Times Now, India Today) framed the protest as a political drama, highlighting BJP criticism that Gandhi sought attention. Government-critical sources (National Herald) led with the victim's injuries, Gandhi's direct challenge to Amit Shah, and the police's initial refusal to register the FIR. Both sides agree an FIR was filed, but differ on whether this was a routine procedure or a forced outcome. The measured read: the FIR is a fact, but the larger question of who authorised pellet use remains unresolved, with the Supreme Court committee yet to report.
Coverage: 12 sources, 1 pro-government, 4 government-critical, 7 neutral
Sources (12): indiatoday.in (neutral report), indiatoday.in (2) (neutral report), indiatoday.in (3) (neutral report), indiatoday.in (4) (neutral report), indiatoday.in (5) (neutral report), indiatoday.in (6) (neutral report), indiatoday.in (7) (neutral report), nationalheraldindia.com (government critical), nationalheraldindia.com (2) (government critical), timesnownews.com (government critical), timesnownews.com (2) (pro government), timesnownews.com (3) (government critical)
This story was synthesised by AI from the 12 sources linked above.
Updated: this story now draws on 12 sources.
