Complaint against Pappu Yadav for Ram Mandir donation theft skit outside Parliament

The Delhi BJP and religious groups in Varanasi have filed police complaints against Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, Purnia MP Rajesh Ranjan (known as Pappu Yadav), and Faizabad MP Awadhesh Prasad following a theatrical protest held outside Parliament on Friday, July 31.

The demonstration, staged near Parliament's Makar Dwar during the Monsoon session, involved a skit depicting the alleged theft of donations from the Ram temple in Ayodhya. During the performance, Pappu Yadav wore saffron attire and a shawl bearing the word Ram while sitting near donation boxes featuring an image of Lord Ram. As other Opposition MPs placed currency into the boxes, Yadav moved the money into his pockets to symbolize the siphoning of offerings.

The Delhi BJP submitted a six-page complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi district, signed by New Delhi MP Bansuri Swaraj and leaders Sanket Gupta, Anil Sharma, and Karnail Singh. The complaint alleges the performance was a deliberate attempt to insult Hindu religious symbols, devotees, and saints, rather than a piece of political satire. It argues that the use of saffron clothing and the image of Lord Ram reduced sacred symbols to political props and portrayed Hindu saints and priests as thieves.

The Delhi BJP has requested an FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, specifically citing Sections 298, 299, 302, and 353(2), as well as Section 3(5) and provisions of the Information Technology Act. These provisions address the insult of religious beliefs, words intended to wound religious feelings, and acts involving sacred objects.

The complainants explicitly argued that Article 105 of the Constitution, which provides parliamentary privilege for speech and voting, should not offer blanket immunity for acts performed outside authorized proceedings on the Parliament estate. They have called on police to collect CCTV footage, television broadcasts, and social media posts to investigate the planning and coordination of the skit.

Similar legal actions have emerged in Uttar Pradesh. In Varanasi, an FIR was registered at the Kotwali Police Station on Saturday against Rahul Gandhi, Pappu Yadav, and Awadhesh Prasad. This followed complaints from lawyers and members of the saint community. Seer Balakdas Devacharya of Patalpuri Math stated that Yadav had insulted the saffron robe, the saint community, and Lord Ram. Advocate Vineet Kumar Singh also confirmed a complaint filed with Cantonment police authorities, alleging an insult to Sanatan Dharma.

Kashi Zone Deputy Commissioner of Police Gaurav Banswal confirmed that a formal complaint was submitted regarding videos circulating on social media.

Pappu Yadav has denied that the protest targeted Hinduism or religious practices. In a social media post, he stated he was not against faith but against loot that is being committed in the name of faith, directing his objection solely at donation thieves who exploit public sentiment.

The Opposition maintains the skit was intended to demand accountability regarding a criminal investigation into the Ayodhya temple's donation-counting system. That case has already resulted in the arrest of eight people. Investigators are examining the use of fake receipts, the removal of cash from offerings, and gaps in CCTV monitoring. The Supreme Court has requested a status report from the Special Investigation Team and called for an independent forensic auditor to join the probe.

Beyond the donation issue, the protesters raised slogans such as Chanda chor, gaddi chhod and Jawab tumko dena hoga, while demanding that Union Home Minister Amit Shah appear in Parliament to address the donation theft and police action against protesting students.

The Lok Sabha Secretariat has indicated that costume-based protests and theatrical demonstrations will no longer be permitted within the Parliament complex. A separate complaint regarding the incident has also been filed at the Jahangirpuri police station in Delhi; police stated they are seeking a legal opinion before taking further action.