Congress Condemns Death Threats to Rahul, MPs, ED Demands CBI Inquiry against Mamata Banerjee

Rohit Kumar

NEW DELHI, Feb 19: The Congress on Thursday condemned the issuance of death threats to its leader Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and 25 other party MPs by a man claiming himself to be associated with Karni Sena.

In a video the man who identified himself as Raj Singh associated with Karni Sena and a supporter of the Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla had threatened to kill Rahul Gandhi and destroy the houses of the 25 Congress MPs allegedly for “abusing” the Speaker.

The person said on the video that all the workers of the BJP and the Karni Sena were enraged after listening to the Parliamentary Affairs minister Kiren Rijiju’s statement on the ruckus in the Lok Sabha by the Congress members. He said if such an incident was repeated and the Congress members did not apologize to Mr Birla, the BJP and Karni Sena workers would shoot down Rahul Gandhi in Parliament and destroy the houses of the fellow MPs.

The Congress general secretary KC Venugopal accused the BJP of fostering a “toxic culture of animosity” in national discourse. In a post on

“This is a direct result of the toxic culture of animosity and vengeance created by the BJP in national discourse — right from Parliament to political rallies. They treat political opponents as die-hard enemies to be eliminated, and their foot soldiers — blinded by hate — are unleashed to intimidate Opposition leaders,” he said. He added that such threats would not deter Mr Gandhi, saying he “will continue to face each adversary head on.”

The Kota Superintendent of Police Tejaswani Gautam, however, said the man, who identified himself as Raj Singh in the video, had been detained at the Borkheda police station and was being questioned.

Earlier, Pawan Khera, the Congress head of the media and publicity department, shared the video on “The threat issued by the so-called Karni Sena against Rahul Gandhi and the ’25 Members of Parliament’ is not an isolated outburst. It is part of a calculated and devious plan,” Mr Khera said, alleging a campaign to demonize the Opposition and legitimize violence against political rivals.

At a press briefing, Congress spokesperson Supriya Shrinate questioned the government’s response to the video, asking why no FIR had been registered. “I want to ask Om Birla jithe goon in this video calls himself your supporter from the Karni Sena — do you have no objection to this video? What is the Home Minister doing? There is pin-drop silence even as a goon openly threatens to shoot MPs and the Leader of the Opposition,” she said.

The Congress also alleged that there was a deliberate attempt to amplify claims that some of its MPs had verbally abused Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, a charge the party has categorically rejected.

Meanwhile, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) launched an all-out attack against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in the Supreme Court for her “gross and blatant abuse” of power by “illegally barging” into the site of ongoing raids at the offices of political consultancy firm I-PAC on January 8 with senior police officers in tow.

The ED has sought an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Ms Banerjee and senior police officers for carrying away electronic devices and material considered as evidence in a ₹2,742-crore coal smuggling case and associated money-laundering charges.

The State of West Bengal, and Ms Banerjee, argued that the raids were conducted without permission from the State Police, and were designed to take away confidential material concerning the ruling Trinamool Congress, which consults with I-PAC and its founder Pratik Jain, whose residences were searched by the Central agency.

The ED, however, rejected the State’s counter that the CM and the police contingent had intervened to prevent “armed persons impersonating officials of Central agencies” from conducting an unauthorized search. ED officials had dutily displayed their ID cards and search authorization to the police officers, the Central agency submitted in its rejoinder.

The ED said the police allowed the Chief Minister, in fact, escorted her into the premises where an active search was going on and forcibly retrieved incriminating material. “Individuals took away documents collected and indexed by the ED officers. The back-up process for the computer and email dump was also stopped midway. Ms Banerjee, assisted by the State police officers, forcefully took away the computer installed in the premises.

“The State police on the instructions of Ms Banerjee forcefully took away the mobile phones of the employees of M/s Indian PAC Consulting Pvt. Ltd., present at the premises. They took the laptop of the ED officer and a mobile phone of the officer and returned it after two hours. The taking of the laptop and mobile phone and keeping in their possession for two hours amounts to theft,” the ED submitted.

It said Ms Banerjee entered the premises along with her Z-plus security personnel, individuals in plain clothes, and senior officers of the Kolkata Police, in “complete disregard of the lawful proceedings that were already underway.” “The heavy presence of police personnel to the tune of hundreds itself demonstrates coercion by the State Police and interference with lawful search under the PMLA by the ED officers…

“The manner of entry constituted a clear show of force and numerical strength, during which documents and incriminating material were forcefully taken over and removed from the premises, despite repeated requests by ED officers to refrain from doing so… No investigation agency would ordinarily permit a third person to enter into premises of an ongoing search and take away materials,” the ED submitted.

The ED denied Ms Banerjee’s argument that material seized by her only contained confidential and proprietary information of the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC). “Once such material has been forcibly retrieved and taken away, it becomes difficult to identify what all was taken away and determine whether or not they were only confidential and proprietary information of the party or whether they also contained information relating to the offense which was being investigated into by the ED,” the rejoinder said.