Ram Temple donation skit FIR: RSP MP slams case against Rahul Gandhi, Pappu Yadav
Synopsis
An FIR filed in Varanasi against Rahul Gandhi, Pappu Yadav, and Awadhesh Prasad over a Parliament skit on Ram Temple donation theft has drawn sharp pushback from RSP MP N.K. Premachandran, who argues it criminalises a protest form Parliament has tolerated for decades — and that the government's refusal to allow a debate left the Opposition no other recourse.
Key Takeaways
Premachandran called the Varanasi FIR against Rahul Gandhi and Pappu Yadav unjustifiable under any circumstances.
The FIR was registered at Kotwali Police Station, Varanasi on Saturday under Sections 196, 299, 302 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita .
The skit was staged on Friday at Makar Dwar in the Parliament complex to protest alleged donation theft at the Ram Temple, Ayodhya .
Samajwadi Party MP Awadhesh Prasad (Faizabad/Ayodhya) is also named in the FIR alongside Gandhi and Yadav.
The complaint was filed by seers alleging insult to Sanatan Dharma ; protests by VHP and Bajrang Dal were reported in Bhopal .
The Opposition has repeatedly sought a parliamentary debate on the Ayodhya donation issue, but the government has not agreed to it.
Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) Member of Parliament N.K. Premachandran on Monday sharply criticised the Varanasi Police for registering an FIR against Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and Independent MP Pappu Yadav, calling the move unjustifiable under any circumstances. The FIR stems from a symbolic skit staged in the Parliament complex on Friday to protest the alleged theft of donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya.
What Premachandran Said
'I strongly protest the registration of an FIR against Rahul Gandhi and Pappu Yadav. This was merely a symbolic form of protest held in front of Parliament,' Premachandran said. He added that the Opposition had been consistently demanding a parliamentary discussion on the donation theft issue, but the government had refused to allow it.
'Even the Home Ministry is not coming to the House regarding the issue. The entire Opposition wants to have an important discussion on this matter. Parliament is the appropriate forum to debate such issues, and when that opportunity is denied, symbolic protests become the only option available to the Opposition,' he said.
Premachandran's Precedent Argument
The RSP MP challenged the legal basis of the FIR by pointing to a long history of symbolic demonstrations inside Parliament. 'Members from Telangana and leaders from the Telugu Desam Party have even brought representations of gods and goddesses into Parliament during protests. We have witnessed many symbolic demonstrations within the Parliament premises. How can the government now claim that this amounts to a criminal offence and register an FIR? It cannot be justified at all,' he said.
His argument reflects a broader Opposition contention: that the FIR criminalises a form of dissent that has been accepted practice across party lines for decades.
The Skit and the FIR
The skit was performed on Friday in front of the Makar Dwar in the Parliament complex. Pappu Yadav, dressed in saffron attire, participated alongside other Opposition MPs. During the performance, MPs including Rahul Gandhi placed money in donation boxes, while Yadav symbolically slipped money into his pockets to depict the alleged embezzlement. Samajwadi Party MP Awadhesh Prasad, who represents the Faizabad (Ayodhya) constituency in Uttar Pradesh, was also named in the FIR.
The case was registered at Kotwali Police Station in Varanasi on Saturday following a complaint by several seers, who alleged the three leaders had insulted Sanatan Dharma. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kashi Zone, Gaurav Banswal confirmed the FIR was lodged under Sections 196, 299, 302, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Ground-Level Protests
Hindu groups expressed anger over the skit through protests at multiple locations. In Bhopal, activists from the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal raised slogans against Rahul Gandhi and attempted to march from Vyapam Square to Link Road. Police stopped them at barricades, and scuffles broke out when some activists attempted to cross.
What Comes Next
The Opposition is likely to press the issue further in Parliament, where demands for a debate on the Ram Temple donation controversy remain unmet. The FIR, filed under BNS provisions that include charges related to promoting enmity and outraging religious feelings, could face legal challenge. The episode deepens the standoff between the ruling dispensation and Opposition over the Ram Temple's administration and financial accountability.
Point of View
Why has the government blocked it? Premachandran's precedent argument is not easily dismissed — symbolic protests, including those involving religious imagery, have occurred inside Parliament without criminal consequence. Filing charges under BNS provisions on promoting enmity and outraging religious feelings against elected MPs for a scripted demonstration sets a precedent that could chill legitimate dissent. The deeper issue — financial accountability at the Ram Temple — remains unaddressed, and the FIR risks shifting attention from that substantive question to a procedural one about the right to protest.
NationPress
3 Aug 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was an FIR filed against Rahul Gandhi and Pappu Yadav?
An FIR was registered at Kotwali Police Station in Varanasi on Saturday following a complaint by several seers who alleged that a skit performed by Opposition MPs in the Parliament complex on Friday insulted Sanatan Dharma. The skit was intended to protest the alleged theft of donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya.
What sections of the law are invoked in the FIR?
The FIR was lodged under Sections 196, 299, 302, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which relate to offences including promoting enmity between groups and outraging religious feelings, according to DCP Gaurav Banswal of Kashi Zone.
Who else is named in the FIR besides Rahul Gandhi and Pappu Yadav?
Samajwadi Party MP Awadhesh Prasad, who represents the Faizabad (Ayodhya) constituency in Uttar Pradesh, is also named in the FIR. All three participated in or were present during the skit at Makar Dwar in the Parliament complex.
What was the skit about and how was it performed?
The skit depicted the alleged embezzlement of donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. Pappu Yadav, dressed in saffron attire, symbolically slipped money into his pockets while other MPs including Rahul Gandhi placed money into donation boxes, enacting the alleged theft.
Why does RSP MP Premachandran say the FIR cannot be justified?
Premachandran argues that symbolic protests have been a longstanding and accepted practice inside Parliament, citing examples of MPs from multiple parties staging demonstrations — including bringing religious imagery — without criminal proceedings. He also contends that the Opposition was left with no option after the government repeatedly refused to allow a parliamentary debate on the Ram Temple donation issue.
