wh1.

Rahul Gandhi (INC – Leader of Opposition)

1. Shri Gandhi, your party imposed Emergency in 1975 suspending Article 21 and
gagging Article 19(1)(a). Even the Supreme Court in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant
Shukla (1976) infamously upheld this, later overruled as a constitutional wrong in
K.S. Puttaswamy (2017). Do you accept that your very claim to “defend democracy”
collapses under this historical indictment of Congress?

2. Under UPA, Section 66A, IT Act (2000) was abused to jail over 1,349 citizens for mere
online speech between 2009–13. Can you justify why your party converted Article
19(2)’s reasonable restrictions into instruments of political censorship?

3. Article 356 was invoked 93 times by Congress to dissolve state governments,

4. Rahul ji, your speeches often claim to protect “youth expression,” yet your family
trust is indicted in the National Herald scam (₹90 crore property diversion), a media
institution originally meant to safeguard free speech. How do you reconcile this
contradiction?

2. Sonia Gandhi (INC – Former President)

1. Madam Gandhi, during your presidency of INC, your party defended opaque Section
69A blocking orders under the IT Act, resulting in 55,000+ websites banned by 2013
without transparency. How is this compatible with Article 19(1)(a) and judicial
safeguards under Article 32?

2. The 39th and 42nd Amendments (1975–76), bulldozed by Congress, undermined

3. Your tenure saw no repeal of draconian frameworks like the 2011 Intermediary
Rules, which mandated 36-hour takedowns with no courts involved. How do you
justify violating Article 75(3)—the accountability of ministers to Parliament—by
allowing bureaucrats to censor without legislative scrutiny?

3. Mallikarjun Kharge (INC – Party President)

1. Shri Kharge, your party claims to protect marginalised voices, yet during Emergency,
over 1,11,000 citizens, mostly workers and student activists, were jailed under MISA.
Isn’t this a direct betrayal of Article 39(e) and (f) meant to protect these very
sections?
 2. In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), your party tried to amend the Constitution to
shield electoral malpractice, contradicting Article 75(3)’s principle of accountability.
How does your leadership reconcile with such distortions?

3. CAG Audit (2010) showed ₹2,000+ crore irregularities in Waqf properties under
Congress rule. Does this not erode the guarantee of Article 300A – right to property
—especially for minorities whom your party claims to defend?

4. Shashi Tharoor (INC – Intellectual face)

1. Dr. Tharoor, you often invoke liberal democracy, yet your party introduced 66A of IT
Act, criminalising online dissent. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), it was
struck down as unconstitutional. Do you agree this was a historic violation of Article
19(1)(a) under your watch?

2. You invoke pluralism, yet 42nd Amendment (1976) is called the “Constitution’s
graveyard” for crippling judicial review. How do you defend Congress’s record of
dismantling separation of powers—a doctrine you yourself write about?

3. Given your scholarship, how do you justify Congress invoking Article 356 more than
any party in history, thereby hollowing federalism and destabilising elected state
governments 93 times?

5. Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM – Opposition ally)

1. Mr. Owaisi, you frequently speak of minority protection. Yet your Congress allies
suspended Article 25–28 freedoms during Emergency, when madrassas and dargahs
faced surveillance. How do you reconcile with that betrayal of religious autonomy?

2. Article 300A ensures right to property, yet during Emergency land seizures,
thousands of Muslim families lost holdings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act (1976).
Why does AIMIM remain aligned with Congress despite this legacy?

3. How do you justify demanding minority safeguards when you supported regimes that
criminalised dissent under Section 66A IT Act and silenced Muslim youth on digital
platforms?

6. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (INC – Youth Face)

1. Ms. Vadra, you present yourself as voice of youth, yet NCRB data shows 1,349 online
speech arrests (2009–13) under UPA, mostly targeting students. How do you claim to
stand for youth freedoms when your party institutionalised digital fear?
 2. Article 51A(h) obliges citizens to develop scientific temper, yet under Congress’s 2011
Cyber Café Rules, students had to show IDs to even log in—a presumption of guilt
against youth. How do you justify this betrayal?

3. In light of 44th Amendment (1978) ensuring Articles 20 & 21 cannot be suspended

7. Arvind Kejriwal (AAP – Opposition face)

1. Mr. Kejriwal, you claim to represent transparency. Yet, your alliance with Congress
ignores that 39th Amendment (1975) curtailed free elections, directly violating
Article 326. How do you explain compromising with those who killed electoral
democracy?

2. Your government has repeatedly invoked internet shutdowns in Delhi (CIS Report,
2020)—ironically using the same IT Act Section 69A tools that Congress pioneered.
How do you distinguish yourself from the authoritarianism you criticise?

3. Article 75(3) mandates ministerial accountability to Parliament. Why then did you
support Congress frameworks like the 2011 Intermediary Rules, which outsourced
censorship powers to bureaucrats rather than accountable ministers?