Bengaluru police serve notices to Noida YouTuber for a post on Rahul Gandhi, ‘Dictatorial’ says Karnataka BJP

# Bengaluru Police Serve Notice to Noida YouTuber Over Rahul Gandhi Video

The Karnataka Police have served a notice to Ajeet Bharti, a YouTuber based in Noida, regarding a video he posted on X (formerly Twitter) about Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The video, titled "Rahul trying Hard To Fuel Fire, Naseer Wants Modi in Skull Cap," allegedly contained false claims and was designed to incite enmity, hatred, and ill-will between different communities. This action has triggered a political storm in Karnataka, with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) accusing the Congress-led state government of dictatorial behaviour. The case against Bharti was initiated following a complaint lodged by B.K. Bopanna, the legal cell secretary of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC), at the High Grounds Police Station in Bengaluru on June 15. Bopanna's complaint asserts that Bharti's video falsely claimed that Rahul Gandhi had declared in his speeches an intention to restore the Babri Masjid in place of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. This assertion, according to the complaint, was not only false but also provocative, aimed at creating communal discord. In response to the complaint, the Bengaluru Police issued a notice directing Bharti to appear before the investigating officer at the High Grounds Police Station within seven days of receiving the notice. The notice invoked sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, etc.) and 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will between classes) of the Indian Penal Code. A team from the Karnataka Police reportedly visited Bharti's residence in Sector 57, Noida, around 1 pm on Thursday to deliver the notice. Local police from Noida arrived at Bharti's house shortly afterward, but by then, the Karnataka Police had already served the notice and left. A Noida police officer commented that it is customary for any visiting police team to inform the local police, but this protocol was not followed in this instance. The BJP's Karnataka unit, particularly its president B.Y. Vijayendra, has vehemently criticised the police action. Vijayendra termed it a "dictatorial" move by the Congress-led state government, suggesting that the action was more about intimidating and harassing political opponents rather than addressing pressing law and order issues in the state. He assured Bharti of the BJP's support in fighting the case, accusing the Siddaramaiah government of neglecting serious criminal issues in favour of politically motivated actions against BJP supporters. This incident adds to the ongoing tension between the BJP and the Congress in Karnataka. The BJP has long accused the Congress of targeting its supporters, while the Congress claims that the BJP is attempting to polarise the state along religious lines. The notice served to Bharti is likely to exacerbate these political frictions, as both parties continue to spar over issues of governance and communal harmony. Ajeet Bharti is not new to controversy. He has faced legal action in the past for his provocative online content, often involving public figures and politically sensitive issues. This case brings to the fore the contentious debate around the regulation of online content in India. With the proliferation of social media, there is increasing concern about the potential misuse of legal provisions to silence dissenting voices. In this context, the allegations against Bharti—that his video was intended to sow discord among communities—highlight the delicate balance between curbing hate speech and protecting free speech. The BJP's stance suggests that they view the legal actions against Bharti as an overreach, aimed at curbing dissent and political opposition under the guise of maintaining communal harmony. Furthermore, the procedural aspects of the case, particularly the coordination (or lack thereof) between the Karnataka and Noida police, raise important questions. The local Noida police officer's remarks about not being informed in advance point to a need for better inter-state cooperation and communication among law enforcement agencies. Such coordination is essential to ensure that actions taken are not perceived as politically motivated and that due process is followed. The broader implications of this case extend beyond the immediate political tussle in Karnataka. It underscores the challenges that law enforcement faces in regulating online content while safeguarding democratic freedoms. As the investigation progresses, ensuring that the rights of all parties involved are respected and that the legal process is transparent will be crucial. The reaction from the BJP, branding the Congress government's actions as dictatorial, and the Congress's counter-allegations of the BJP's communal polarisation tactics, reflect the deep political divides in Karnataka. This case, therefore, is not just about the specific content of a YouTube video but is emblematic of the larger battle for political supremacy and the narratives each party seeks to establish. In conclusion, the Bengaluru Police's decision to serve a notice to Ajeet Bharti has ignited a significant political controversy, highlighting the fraught relationship between the BJP and the Congress in Karnataka. The case also raises important questions about the regulation of online content and inter-state law enforcement coordination. As the case unfolds, it will be watched closely for its implications on free speech, communal harmony, and the political landscape in Karnataka.