Bengaluru, Jan 21 (NationPress) The Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) has put forth a recommendation for the suspension of its leader Rajeev Gowda following allegations of threatening and verbally abusing a female municipal commissioner. This incident has garnered national attention and has caused significant embarrassment for the ruling party in Karnataka.

G.C. Chandrashekhar, the KPCC Working President (Administration), has urged the Chairman of the Congress Discipline Committee, K. Rahman Khan, to take action against Gowda. The recommendation arises from corroborated charges of threatening and abusing the Sidlaghatta Municipal Commissioner.

Rajeev Gowda, who was the Congress candidate for Sidlaghatta during the last Assembly elections, is known to be close to Minister for Food K.H. Muniyappa and Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar.

A letter directed to Rahman Khan highlighted that Gowda allegedly made threatening comments concerning the installation of banners for a private event within the Sidlaghatta City Municipal Council. He reportedly called the Municipal Commissioner, personally abusing her with obscene and offensive language.

A notice was issued to him on January 15, 2026, at the behest of KPCC President D.K. Shivakumar; however, he has yet to respond.

“The statements made by Rajeev Gowda have been widely reported in the media, leading to serious embarrassment for the party and its leadership. The KPCC President has taken the matter seriously and instructed that the issue of suspending Gowda from the party be forwarded to the KPCC Discipline Committee,” Chandrashekhar noted.

Moreover, the Karnataka High Court recently criticized Rajeev Gowda regarding this case of threats and abuse aimed at a woman municipal commissioner. The court questioned the government for not charging him with more serious offenses.

A bench led by Justice M. Nagaprasanna admonished Gowda during the proceedings of a petition that sought to dismiss the FIR against him. Currently, Gowda is evading arrest, and the petition was filed through his attorney.

The High Court raised concerns over why sections related to serious offenses against women were not applied, especially given the allegations of foul language directed at the female officer.

“Does the petitioner have no respect for women? How can he speak in this manner? Once words are spoken, they cannot be taken back. A careless tongue can ruin everything,” the Bench remarked.

The court further noted that merely offering an apology would not change the mindset that led to such hurtful actions. The Bench has reserved its decision and adjourned the case.