Minister Cites Magistrate's Authority While Rebutting Rahul Gandhi's Firing Order Charge

The government on Wednesday strongly rejected Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi's allegation that Union Home Minister Amit Shah had ordered police to open fire on student protesters in Delhi during last week's demonstrations. Responding in the Lok Sabha, Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office Jitendra Singh said the allegation was factually incorrect and reflected a lack of understanding of administrative procedures. The exchange took place during a discussion on the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, which was later passed by the House.

Addressing the Lok Sabha, Jitendra Singh clarified that under established administrative procedures, only a magistrate or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) is authorised to issue an order to open fire in law-and-order situations, not a Union minister. He further stated that no firing had taken place during the student protests, asserting that security personnel had used tear gas to disperse demonstrators. Since no shots were fired, Singh said, the question of any such order being issued did not arise.

Earlier in the debate, Rahul Gandhi had criticised the government's handling of the student protests and alleged that Amit Shah was responsible for the crackdown. He claimed the Home Minister had ordered attacks on protesting students and questioned his absence from the House during the discussion. Gandhi argued that if the Home Minister had authorised the alleged firing, he was accountable, and if he was unaware of such action, it reflected administrative incompetence. He also maintained that he had the right to raise the issue in Parliament.

Also Read: Australian Minister Announces Return Of Stolen Indian Artefacts

Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju objected to Gandhi's remarks, accusing him of making unsubstantiated allegations against the Home Minister. Rijiju demanded that Gandhi either substantiate his claims or apologise, describing the remarks as highly objectionable. The disagreement triggered noisy scenes in the Lok Sabha, leading to repeated disruptions and two adjournments as members from the ruling and Opposition benches exchanged slogans.

Despite the uproar, the Lok Sabha later passed the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 through a voice vote amid continued Opposition protests. The legislation seeks to strengthen the legal framework against examination malpractices by increasing penalties, enhancing punishments, and introducing stricter timelines for investigations and trials. The heated exchanges over the student protests and the government's response underscored the sharp political divisions that dominated proceedings during the Bill's passage.

Also Read: Karnataka To Hold All-Party Meeting On Cauvery Issue, Says Dy CM Parameshwara