Delhi court plea seeks FIR against Pappu Yadav over remarks on women in politics
Synopsis
A Delhi court complaint has escalated the Pappu Yadav controversy beyond political criticism into legal territory. With police inaction alleged at two levels — local station and the CM grievance portal — the Karkardooma court is now the complainant's last recourse. The Bihar Women's Commission had already moved; the question is whether the judiciary will direct an FIR against a sitting MP.
Key Takeaways
Satish Kumar Aggarwal filed a complaint at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi seeking an FIR against Independent MP Pappu Yadav (Rajesh Ranjan) of Purnea, Bihar .
The alleged remark, made on 21 April : 'Without entering a politician's room, 90 per cent of women cannot do politics.' The complaint invokes Sections 79, 356(2), and 356(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 .
Earlier attempts to register an FIR at Farsh Bazar Police Station and through the Delhi CM Public Grievance Portal reportedly yielded no action.
The Bihar State Women's Commission had already issued a notice to Pappu Yadav, seeking an explanation within three days.
Pappu Yadav has denied the framing, saying his remarks were taken out of context and intended to highlight exploitation of women in politics.
A complaint has been filed before a Delhi court seeking registration of an FIR against Rajesh Ranjan, popularly known as Pappu Yadav, the Independent Lok Sabha MP from Bihar's Purnea, over his alleged derogatory remarks targeting women in politics. The plea was filed by Satish Kumar Aggarwal before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class at Karkardooma Courts under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
What the Complaint Alleges
According to the plea, Pappu Yadav made a statement before the media on 21 April, saying: 'Without entering a politician's room, 90 per cent of women cannot do politics.' The complainant termed the remark 'deeply offensive, derogatory, and obscene,' arguing it was 'ex facie insulting, demeaning, and prejudicial to the dignity, honour, and modesty of women.'
The plea alleged that the statement had caused 'grave resentment and outrage' after being widely circulated across media platforms. The complainant claimed the remarks amount to offences punishable under Sections 79, 356(2), and 356(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, arguing the statement 'explicitly projects a derogatory, obscene, and disparaging narrative suggesting that women can only advance in public life through sexual compromise.'
Prior Attempts to Register a Complaint
According to the plea, the complainant had first approached the SHO of Farsh Bazar Police Station on 25 April, seeking legal action, but no FIR was registered. A subsequent complaint lodged through the Delhi government's CM Public Grievance Portal was allegedly forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Purnea, also without any substantive action. The court plea was filed after these attempts reportedly yielded no result.
Court Relief Sought
The complainant has urged the Magistrate to direct the registration of an FIR and order a 'fair, impartial and time-bound investigation.' Alternatively, the plea seeks an inquiry under Section 202 of the BNSS for the preservation and examination of electronic and broadcast evidence linked to the alleged remarks.
Political Fallout and Pappu Yadav's Response
The controversy had already drawn institutional attention before the court filing. The Bihar State Women's Commission took suo motu cognisance of the matter, issuing a notice to Pappu Yadav and terming the alleged remarks 'objectionable' and 'against the dignity of women,' seeking an explanation within three days. Leaders across party lines had condemned the statement and demanded action against the Purnea MP.
Pappu Yadav, however, maintained that his remarks were taken out of context. He asserted that his intention was to highlight alleged exploitation and crimes faced by women in public life, and that his comments were selectively presented by media. Notably, the remarks were made during discussions surrounding the Women's Reservation Bill, adding a charged political backdrop to the controversy.
The case is now before the Karkardooma court, and the Magistrate's decision on whether to direct an FIR or order a preliminary inquiry is awaited.
Point of View
Courts become the default pressure valve. The complainant's two-stage failure — at the police station and the CM grievance portal — before approaching a Magistrate is a pattern that recurs whenever the accused holds elected office. What makes this case sharper is its timing: the remarks were made in the context of the Women's Reservation Bill debate, which means the political and legal dimensions are inseparable. Whether or not the court directs an FIR, the case has already set a benchmark for how swiftly institutional accountability moves — or doesn't — when a sitting MP's words are at issue.
NationPress
8 Aug 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Pappu Yadav say that triggered the complaint?
Pappu Yadav allegedly said on 21 April: 'Without entering a politician's room, 90 per cent of women cannot do politics.' The complainant argues this statement is derogatory and insulting to the dignity of women. Pappu Yadav has maintained the remark was taken out of context.
What legal sections have been invoked in the complaint?
The complaint invokes Sections 79, 356(2), and 356(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which relate to offences against the modesty and dignity of women. The plea was filed under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Why was the complaint filed in a Delhi court instead of in Bihar?
The complainant had first approached the SHO of Farsh Bazar Police Station in Delhi on 25 April, but no FIR was registered. A subsequent complaint through the Delhi CM Public Grievance Portal was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Purnea, also without action. The Delhi court was approached after these attempts failed.
What action has the Bihar State Women's Commission taken?
The Bihar State Women's Commission took suo motu cognisance of the matter and issued a notice to Pappu Yadav, terming the remarks 'objectionable' and 'against the dignity of women.' It sought an explanation from the MP within three days.
What is Pappu Yadav's position on the controversy?
Pappu Yadav has denied that his remarks were derogatory, asserting they were selectively presented and taken out of context. He stated his intention was to raise concerns about exploitation and crimes faced by women in public life, not to demean them.
