Rahul Gandhi on Tuesday hit back at Union Minister Kiren Rijiju over his claim that no student suffered serious injuries during the student protests in Delhi last month, saying he had personally met injured protesters.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha also alleged that police used pellet guns and lathis studded with nails against students during the July 20 march towards Parliament.

Gandhi shared a video of Kiren Rijiju’s remarks on X and questioned the government’s account of the police action during the protests.

“Ministers of the Modi government are saying that ‘the Delhi Police should be praised’. Half a kilometre from Parliament, pellet guns were fired at peaceful students, lathis studded with nails were used, one child’s eye was lost, one girl’s ear was severed. Should we praise this brutality?” Gandhi said in his post.

The Congress leader said he had met several injured students himself and claimed that videos of the police action had been widely viewed.

Rahul Gandhi attacks Centre over student protests

Gandhi accused the government of trying to deny what protesters allegedly experienced during the July 20 demonstration.

“The fundamental mantra of this government is untruth and violence,” he alleged, adding that attempts to deny the injuries would not change what had happened.

He further said, “Don’t lie to the children of this country. They have eyes and memories too.”

The July 20 protest involved students marching towards Parliament while demanding the resignation of then Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

What Kiren Rijiju said about the protests

Rijiju, who holds the Minority Affairs and Parliamentary Affairs portfolios, defended the handling of the protests and said the Delhi Police and administration deserved praise.

During an interview with a news agency, Rijiju said no person had died during the protest and claimed that no protester suffered a broken bone or was admitted to hospital with a serious injury.

“Not a single person died, not a single person suffered a broken bone. Not a single protester is admitted to the hospital with a serious injury,” he said.

Rijiju also alleged that people associated with various political groups had joined the protest and contributed to tensions.

He said the police acted only when protesters attempted to march towards Parliament and maintained that the administration handled the situation peacefully.

“In this case, one ought to praise the Delhi Police and the administration,” the minister said, arguing that no death or serious injury had occurred despite the scale of the demonstration.

Rahul Gandhi questions police action

Responding to Rijiju’s remarks, Gandhi questioned how the police action could be praised while alleging that protesters had sustained serious injuries.

His allegations about pellet firing, nail-studded lathis and specific injuries were presented by him as part of his criticism of the government’s account of the protest.

Rijiju, however, maintained that the Delhi Police did not use lathis during the protest and rejected the suggestion that the police response resulted in serious injuries.

The two accounts remain sharply at odds over the nature and severity of injuries suffered during the July 20 student protest.

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge on Tuesday questioned the basis of a complaint filed against Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi over an alleged attempt to disrupt the singing of Vande Mataram at the party headquarters.

Kharge argued that if singing the version of Vande Mataram performed by the Congress was considered a crime, then similar complaints should also be made against Mahatma Gandhi and former prime ministers Jawaharlal Nehru and Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

The remarks came amid a political row over the rendition of the national song during the Congress’s Independence Day celebrations at its headquarters on Saturday. BJP leaders had alleged that Sonia Gandhi signaled for the full rendition to be stopped.

The Congress has rejected the allegation. Party leader Udit Raj said Sonia Gandhi’s gesture was related to arranging a chair for Kharge, who, according to the party, was unable to stand for a long period.

Kharge questions complaint against Sonia, Rahul

Kharge said the Congress had been singing the same version of Vande Mataram for years and questioned why the party’s leaders were being targeted over it.

He referred to the use of the same version by Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru and also cited the period when Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s government was in power.

Kharge said that if the rendition amounted to a crime, then those who had previously sung the same version should also face complaints. He also said the Congress had passed a resolution concerning national songs before many of its current critics were born.

What Congress said about Sonia Gandhi’s gesture

The controversy began after the Vande Mataram rendition at the Congress headquarters during the Independence Day event.

According to the allegations, Sonia Gandhi noticed that the singers were continuing with the full version and appeared to gesture towards Kharge before communicating with the singers.

The Congress disputed this interpretation. Udit Raj said Sonia Gandhi was instead gesturing about arrangements for Kharge, who had been standing for a considerable period.

Complaint filed against Sonia, Rahul Gandhi

A complaint was filed with the Delhi Police on Monday against Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. The complainant sought registration of an FIR over the alleged attempt to disrupt the singing of Vande Mataram at the Congress headquarters.

The controversy continued on Monday when Kharge participated in a Vande Mataram rendition in Goa ahead of a Congress convention. The version sung there included the first two stanzas.

The row comes after the Centre made singing Vande Mataram in its entirety mandatory at public gatherings, schools and official government functions, among other places. Parliament has also passed legislation making intentional obstruction, disruption or prevention of the singing of Vande Mataram a criminal offence, according to the report.

The Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing alleged irregularities in donation management at the Ayodhya Ram Temple has cleared former Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust general secretary Champat Rai and former Trust member Anil Mishra.

The Uttar Pradesh Home Department on Monday handed over the SIT’s final report to the Trust, which will now take further action based on the findings.

Rai and Mishra had resigned from their positions on June 27 after allegations of donation theft emerged. The two former Trust members were subsequently questioned by the SIT about the temple’s donation management process.

Champat Rai denied involvement in donation theft

According to sources, Champat Rai told investigators during questioning that he had no role in the alleged theft. He reportedly said that the suspects were arrested following his complaint.

Rai also told the police that ensuring there were no irregularities in donation collection was part of his responsibility and that he acted after learning about the alleged wrongdoing.

SIT was formed before Supreme Court intervention

The three-member SIT was constituted by the Uttar Pradesh government on June 13 at the request of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust.

Lucknow Divisional Commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant headed the panel. Range Inspector General Kiran S and Special Secretary (Finance) Neel Ratan Kumar were the other members.

The SIT submitted its preliminary report to the state government on June 23 and made several stringent recommendations.

Following the preliminary report, Trust member Krishnamohan filed a written complaint at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi police station. An FIR was subsequently registered on June 25.

Eight people named in FIR

The FIR named Avinash Shukla, Anukalp Mishra, Lavkush Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey, Ramashankar Mishra, Subhash Srivastava and Ram Shankar Yadav, alias Tinnu, along with other unidentified individuals.

According to the provided report, all eight named accused were arrested and booked under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The SIT’s preliminary findings also formed the basis for subsequent FIRs and arrest-related action in the case.