All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Shatrughan Sinha on Thursday, 30 July backed Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi's parliamentary attack on Union Home Minister Amit Shah over alleged police excesses against agitators during the July 20 Parliament march, asserting that Gandhi 'should have been allowed' to complete his speech on the floor of the House.

Sinha also invoked Isaac Newton's third law of motion to warn that forcibly suppressing an issue only amplifies the backlash — a pointed metaphor for the government's handling of the student agitation.

What Sinha Said About the Alleged Police Action

Sinha argued that the facts presented by Gandhi were well-founded. 'According to me, the facts were with Rahul Gandhi; he had prepared about the atrocities committed against the students...Their clothes were torn, they were subjected to abusive language, and people in plain clothes were seen moving alongside the police. They were carrying nail-studded batons and beating people with extreme brutality and cruelty. It was highly condemnable and shameful. This is exactly what Rahul Gandhi was referring to in the Parliament,' Sinha said.

He further noted that Gandhi had also raised concerns about the reported use of pellet guns in Delhi and an AK-47 in Bihar during the protests. 'No policeman would have the courage to use pellet guns, that too near the Parliament in the national capital, under the watch of the Prime Minister and the Home Minister,' Sinha said, adding that such actions, in his view, could only occur with orders from above.

The Parliament Flashpoint

The controversy erupted a day earlier, on Wednesday, 29 July, when Gandhi raised the issue of alleged police brutality during a debate on the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 in the Lok Sabha. His speech was reportedly disrupted by National Democratic Alliance (NDA) members, drawing sharp criticism from the Opposition.

Sinha referenced the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which reportedly led the July 20 agitation, and named individuals — including Abhijeet Dipke and Saurav Das — whose cases drew international media coverage. He questioned whether district-level police officers would have acted without higher-level authorisation, suggesting accountability must be traced up the chain of command.

On Accountability and the Government's Response

The ruling alliance's position, according to Sinha, has been that the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate bears responsibility for orders issued during large-scale demonstrations. Sinha rejected this framing, arguing that the government's refusal to let Gandhi speak sends a damaging signal. 'It now comes across as if the government is not ready to listen to the worries of the students and Gen Z. That they are not bothered,' he said.

He added that Gandhi should have been allowed to finish his remarks, after which Union Minister of State Jitendra Singh — who tabled the anti-paper leak bill — could have responded on the government's behalf.

Newton's Law as Political Warning

Closing his remarks, Sinha drew on physics to make a political point: 'The more you try to press an issue, it will respond more strongly.' The invocation of Newton's third law underscored his broader argument that suppressing legitimate student grievances risks intensifying public discontent rather than resolving it. The question of police accountability, he stressed, remains central and unresolved.

With Parliament still in session and the anti-paper leak bill under debate, the Opposition's pressure on the Home Ministry over the July 20 march is unlikely to ease in the days ahead.