A political controversy has broken out after Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi was presented with what was claimed to be his great-grandfather Feroze Gandhi’s driving licence during his visit to Rae Bareli in Uttar Pradesh on Tuesday. The development triggered sharp reactions from the BJP, with Uttar Pradesh minister of state (independent charge) Dinesh Pratap Singh questioning the authenticity of the document and demanding a formal probe. The licence, said to have been issued in 1938, was handed over publicly, adding fuel to a debate over its origin, legality and political intent.
How The Licence Surfaced During Rahul’s Visit
Rahul Gandhi was on a tour of his parliamentary constituency Rae Bareli. On the second day of the visit, Vikas Singh, associated with the organising committee of the Rae Bareli Premier League, handed him the licence on stage.
Vikas Singh claimed the document had surfaced years ago when his father-in-law found it unexpectedly during a programme. He said the licence was preserved by his father-in-law and later by his mother-in-law, before being handed over to Rahul Gandhi during the current visit.
Congress sources said Rahul became emotional after receiving the licence and immediately informed his mother Sonia Gandhi via WhatsApp. He also thanked Vikas Singh publicly for returning the document.
BJP Questions Authenticity
Minister Dinesh Pratap Singh raised questions over how such a personal document ended up with someone outside the family. He said a driving licence is typically a private possession that should remain with the individual or legal heirs, making its sudden appearance “suspicious”.
He demanded verification of whether the document is genuine and valid, and a clear explanation of how it came into the possession of the person who handed it over. The minister also suggested the episode could have been used to turn Rahul Gandhi’s Rae Bareli tour into a “political event”.
Dinesh Pratap Singh also targeted Rahul Gandhi through a Facebook post, questioning whether the issue was raised to mislead people and gain cheap popularity. He asked why, if the licence was found in someone’s home, it was not returned to the heirs earlier. He further sought clarity on whether the document was legally issued or forged.
The licence is claimed to be 88 years old, issued in 1938. The minister’s demand has now put the focus on whether authorities will initiate any verification process.
