BENGALURU: Former Bengaluru Police Commissioner and BJP leader Bhaskar Rao has asked the Union Home Ministry to verify YouTuber Dhruv Rathee’s citizenship, passport and immigration status after he participated in a protest against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls at Freedom Park on October 8.

In a representation addressed to the Union Home Secretary, Rao sought clarification on whether Rathee was permitted under the conditions governing his stay in India to participate in or address a political protest concerning the country’s electoral process and constitutional institutions.

The request follows a demonstration organised by civil society groups and the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), where Rathee joined actor-activist Prakash Raj and CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke. The participants criticised the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the SIR exercise.

Bhaskar Rao seeks verification of citizenship and immigration records

In his letter, Rao asked the Home Ministry to establish Rathee’s current citizenship and nationality, identify the passport used to enter India and verify the category of visa or other immigration permission under which he was staying in the country.

He also sought details about the declared purpose of Rathee’s visit, the duration of his authorised stay and the conditions attached to the permission granted to him.

Rao said Rathee was understood to hold German citizenship and argued that the circumstances warranted examination by the competent authorities. His representation also asked the ministry to determine whether Rathee’s participation in the protest was permitted under the applicable immigration and visa regulations and whether prior permission or clearance was necessary.

The former police commissioner further requested verification of whether Rathee held an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card or another status that could affect the rules governing his activities in India.

He also called for relevant immigration documents and entry-exit records to be preserved and examined as part of the verification process. Dhruv Rathee attends anti-SIR protest at Freedom Park

The controversy follows the October 8 protest at Freedom Park in Bengaluru, organised against the SIR exercise and the functioning of the Election Commission.

The gathering was described as a “people’s tribunal” and brought together activists, civil society representatives and other participants. Rathee and Prakash Raj joined Abhijeet Dipke at the demonstration.

During the event, Rathee criticised the Election Commission over what he described as a lack of transparency and accountability in the electoral roll revision process. Protesters also demanded action concerning Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The SIR exercise involves the intensive verification and revision of electoral rolls. It has become a subject of political debate, with critics raising concerns about possible voter deletions, documentation requirements and the procedures available to people seeking corrections or restoration of their names.

The concerns expressed at the Bengaluru gathering reflect the position of the protesters. Questions about the conduct of the SIR process and any alleged irregularities remain separate from the request concerning Rathee’s immigration status.

Rao says the request concerns compliance with the law

Rao said his representation was not motivated by disagreement with Rathee’s political views or his criticism of the government and the Election Commission. He said the objective was to establish whether the legal framework governing foreign nationals and their activities in India had been followed.

He asked the ministry to examine whether any provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946, visa conditions, immigration regulations, OCI rules or other applicable laws had been violated.

Rao also sought scrutiny of Rathee’s previous visits to India and whether any earlier participation in political demonstrations or public meetings was consistent with the conditions governing his stay.

He urged the authorities to take appropriate legal action if the verification established a violation. The request itself, however, does not establish that Rathee breached any law or visa condition.

No confirmed immigration violation reported

As of October 10, reports had not established that Rathee had violated Indian immigration rules or the conditions of any permission under which he entered or stayed in the country.

The questions raised by Rao would require the authorities to examine Rathee’s actual citizenship, immigration category and applicable conditions before reaching any conclusion. His participation in the protest alone does not establish whether a violation occurred.

No official finding confirming an immigration violation was reported in connection with the representation. Any further action would depend on the Home Ministry’s examination and the findings of the competent authorities.

The development has brought renewed attention to the regulations governing the activities of foreign nationals and overseas-status holders in India, particularly their participation in public demonstrations involving political and constitutional issues.

For now, the matter remains a request for verification by Rao, rather than a confirmed case of an immigration offence.