FIR Requested Against Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut Over Albania Supreme Court Burning Post

On October 21, a Delhi‑based lawyer named Vineet Jindal lodged a formal complaint with the capital’s police, seeking a First Information Report against Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut. The grievance centers on a post Raut shared on X – the platform formerly known as Twitter – that quoted a video of the alleged fire‑storm that engulfed Albania’s Supreme Court.

In the post, Raut ran a short Marathi caption (later translated into English) suggesting that countries, India especially, should “learn a lesson” from the Albanian incident. He even attached the Indian tricolour at the end, a detail that, to the complainant, smacks of a thinly‑veiled call to target India’s own constitutional institutions.

Jindal’s petition to the Delhi Police Commissioner invokes several sections of the newly‑enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita – namely 353(1)(b), 152, 196 and 197 – as well as relevant clauses of the Information Technology Act, 2000. In plain language, he argues that the post could be read as urging or glorifying violent acts against the Supreme Court, Parliament, government offices, or even ministers’ residences.

The lawyer didn’t just point fingers; he asked the police to preserve the entire digital trail: the original X post, its URL, the video clip, the Marathi text, the English translation, and the surrounding electronic metadata. According to the screenshot attached to the complaint, the post had already racked up roughly 1.3 million views, 12 000 likes, 4 400 reposts and 6 300 comments – numbers that underline its reach, even if they may have shifted since.

It’s worth noting that this request is unrelated to a separate Supreme Court show‑cause notice served to Raut on October 16 over earlier remarks about the Chief Justice of India. Jindal’s filing makes that distinction clear, treating the two matters as distinct legal challenges.

As of now, the police have not commented on whether they will register an FIR or what the next steps might be. The complaint remains a request, not a verdict, and the ultimate decision will rest on the investigation’s findings.