Rahul Gandhi Dharna Outside Parliament Street Police Station Over Pellet Gun FIR

• WhatsApp
• YouTube
• X
• Instagram

Rahul Gandhi staged a protest outside the Delhi Police Deputy Commissioner of Police office near Parliament Street Police Station on Thursday, demanding the registration of an FIR over the alleged use of pellet guns against students on July 20.

The Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha arrived at the Parliament Street Police Station with Sahil, a student who allegedly suffered serious eye injuries after being hit by pellets, and Sahil’s mother. Gandhi accused the Delhi Police of refusing to register a case despite the family’s repeated requests.

The Congress leader said he would remain at the police station until the authorities registered the FIR. Several Congress workers also joined him during the protest.

The dispute centres on allegations surrounding the police response to students who were reportedly heading towards Jantar Mantar on July 20. Gandhi has alleged that Delhi Police personnel used pellet guns during the incident and has demanded criminal action against the officials responsible.

Speaking outside the police station, Gandhi said the demand was straightforward: the police should register an FIR and investigate the allegations.

“We are only saying, register an FIR. We are being told from inside that there are orders from above that an FIR cannot be registered. Until the FIR is registered, we will not move from here. We are only seeking justice for this family,” Gandhi said.

His protest has turned the alleged pellet firing incident into a fresh political confrontation between the Congress and the Delhi Police, with the opposition party accusing the authorities of acting under political pressure.

Gandhi has also questioned the police’s denial that its personnel fired pellets. Referring to pellets allegedly recovered from Sahil’s body, he argued that the injuries required a proper criminal investigation.

“On July 20, a pellet gun was used in Connaught Place. The proof is the pellets that were found in Sahil’s body,” Gandhi said, referring to medical documentation. He added that an AIIMS report recorded the number of pellets found in the injured student’s body.

The Congress leader further questioned how the pellets could have caused Sahil’s injuries if the police did not fire them.

“Delhi Police said that we did not fire the pellets. But if you did not fire them, someone must have,” Gandhi said.

The Congress has strongly backed Sahil’s allegations and accused the authorities of ignoring his family’s attempts to seek legal action.

In a statement shared on social media, the party alleged that Sahil had sustained a serious eye injury after being hit by pellets and that he and his mother had repeatedly approached the police seeking registration of an FIR.

The party also accused Union Home Minister Amit Shah and the Delhi Police of responsibility for what it described as an unacceptable response to the students’ protest. Congress said it would continue its campaign for justice for the affected students.

The immediate issue for Gandhi is the alleged refusal to register Sahil’s complaint as an FIR. According to the Congress, the police did not provide a complaint or investigation number that would allow the family to track the case.

The party has also raised questions about Sahil’s medico-legal case report from AIIMS, saying that the document has not yet been made available to the family for use in the complaint and FIR process.

The development has therefore raised two parallel questions: whether police personnel used pellet guns during the July 20 incident and whether Sahil’s allegations should be formally investigated through an FIR.

The Delhi Police, however, has offered a different account of the situation.

According to an ANI report cited in the information surrounding the incident, New Delhi Deputy Commissioner of Police Sachin Sharma remained in contact with Rahul Gandhi during the protest. Police officials said the victim had already submitted a complaint.

The Delhi Police also pointed out that the cases registered in connection with the July 20 incident are already under investigation by the Crime Branch. The complainant has reportedly been informed that Sahil’s complaint would also be forwarded to the Crime Branch for investigation.

The police position means the immediate disagreement is not simply over whether an investigation should take place. It is also about the manner in which Sahil’s complaint should be handled and whether the allegations require a separate FIR.

For Rahul Gandhi and the Congress, the issue has become a question of accountability and the alleged use of excessive force against students. For the Delhi Police, the existing Crime Branch investigation remains central to its response.

Also Read: Road Safety Awareness Lecture Held at Govt Model High School Maloya Chandigarh

The presence of Gandhi at the police station has given the issue considerable political visibility. His decision to sit outside the DCP office alongside Sahil and his mother has also placed direct pressure on the police to respond to the family’s demand.

The incident comes at a politically sensitive time, with disputes over student protests, police action and accountability repeatedly becoming flashpoints between the government and opposition parties.

Gandhi’s protest is likely to keep attention focused on the July 20 incident until the police clarify the status of Sahil’s complaint and the investigation into the alleged pellet injuries.

For now, the Congress has made it clear that it wants a formal criminal investigation into the officials allegedly responsible for the firing. Gandhi has also indicated that he does not intend to leave the protest site until the FIR issue is addressed.

The next significant development will depend on how the Delhi Police handles Sahil’s complaint and whether the Crime Branch investigation establishes who fired the pellets that allegedly caused his injuries.

The dispute now extends beyond one student’s complaint. It has become a larger political battle over police accountability, the right to protest and the responsibility of law enforcement agencies when demonstrators suffer serious injuries.