Rahul Gandhi urges President to reconsider Dushyant Gautam’s appointment as Governor over pending CBI probe

Rahul Gandhi urged President Droupadi Murmu to ask the Centre to reconsider Dushyant Kumar Gautam’s appointment as Sikkim Governor. He wanted the appointment put on hold until the Central Bureau of Investigation completes its probe into the alleged VIP angle in Ankita Bhandari’s 2022 murder. The request linked a constitutional appointment to an unresolved criminal investigation.

Gandhi wrote that Article 361 gives Governors immunity from criminal proceedings while they hold office. He argued that Gautam’s appointment could make it harder to establish accountability if investigators examine the allegations involving him. Ankita’s parents have alleged that Gautam was the VIP mentioned in claims surrounding her death. Gautam has denied those allegations.

Gandhi described his letter as a last resort. He acknowledged that Governors are appointed on the advice of the Council of Ministers, led by the Prime Minister, but cited Article 74(1), which allows the President to ask the government to reconsider its advice. The government’s response is not stated.

The alleged VIP connection concerns claims about why Ankita Bhandari was murdered. She worked as a receptionist at a resort in Uttarakhand’s Pauri district. Her family and supporters say she was killed after refusing to provide “special services” to a VIP. The identity and possible role of that person remain central to the continuing investigation.

Ankita’s parents have alleged that Dushyant Kumar Gautam was the VIP referred to in those claims. Gautam has denied the allegation. The article does not establish that he was involved in the murder. It reports that he filed a defamation case in the Delhi High Court against several individuals, including the Uttarakhand Congress.

The CBI is investigating the alleged VIP angle even after convictions in the murder case. Ankita’s family continues to demand a fuller inquiry. Gandhi’s request to delay Gautam’s appointment focused on whether becoming Governor could complicate efforts to investigate and establish accountability.

The article identifies three alleged killers in Ankita Bhandari’s murder: Pulkit Arya and two aides. It says Ankita was murdered by them, but it does not name the two aides. The case later resulted in convictions, although Ankita’s family continues to seek an investigation into the separate alleged VIP connection.

The source does not provide a timeline for the arrests. It gives no date for the crime becoming known and no interval between that event and the arrests. Therefore, the speed of the arrests cannot be calculated from the article. Any precise answer about hours or days would go beyond the supplied information.

What the article does establish is that the murder occurred in 2022 and involved Ankita, a resort receptionist in Uttarakhand’s Pauri district. The alleged VIP angle remains under a CBI probe. The family says that investigation must continue despite the convictions of those accused in the murder itself.

Article 361 is the constitutional provision Rahul Gandhi cited when objecting to the appointment. As described in the article, it provides immunity to the President and Governors from criminal proceedings while they hold office. That protection matters because the alleged VIP investigation concerns a person whose appointment could place him within that constitutional category.

The practical example is Gautam’s appointment as Sikkim Governor while the CBI examines the alleged VIP angle. Ankita Bhandari’s parents have alleged that Gautam was the VIP connected to claims that she was killed after refusing “special services.” Gautam denies the allegation. The article does not say that he has been charged in the murder.

Gandhi argued that the appointment could complicate efforts to establish accountability. Article 361’s protection applies during the tenure described in the article, so the political and legal concern is whether the investigation can proceed effectively while the person under allegation holds office. The article does not detail specific investigative steps or court rulings.

The concern is that a person being examined in the alleged VIP inquiry could gain constitutional protection by becoming a Governor. Rahul Gandhi said Article 361 gives Governors immunity from criminal proceedings while they hold office. He argued that this could make accountability more difficult in the unresolved investigation.

The issue arises because Ankita Bhandari’s parents have alleged that Dushyant Kumar Gautam was the VIP connected to claims about her death. Gautam has denied the allegation. The CBI is investigating the alleged VIP angle, while the people convicted in the murder case are separate from the unresolved question about the alleged VIP connection.

The article does not say that the CBI has stopped working or that the probe has been legally blocked. It says the appointment could complicate efforts to establish accountability. That concern led Gandhi to ask President Murmu to seek reconsideration of the appointment until the investigation is completed. No response from the government is reported.

In India’s constitutional process, the President formally appoints a Governor. The article explains that Governors are appointed on the advice of the Council of Ministers, led by the Prime Minister. This means the President makes the appointment, while the Union government supplies the advice behind the decision.

The dispute over Dushyant Kumar Gautam illustrates that division of roles. Gandhi said Prime Minister Narendra Modi advised Gautam’s appointment as Sikkim Governor. Gandhi criticised that advice because Gautam is the subject of allegations connected to the alleged VIP angle in the Ankita Bhandari case. Gautam denies the allegations, and the CBI probe remains ongoing.

Gandhi nevertheless argued that the President has a limited constitutional opportunity to respond. He cited long convention and Article 74(1), saying President Murmu could ask the government to reconsider its advice. The article does not report whether she made that request or whether the government changed its advice.

Article 74(1) gives the President a limited review opportunity over advice from the Council of Ministers. Rahul Gandhi cited it to argue that President Droupadi Murmu could ask the government to reconsider Dushyant Kumar Gautam’s appointment. The provision therefore became central to his appeal against the appointment.

In this case, Gandhi said Governors are appointed on the advice of the Council of Ministers, led by the Prime Minister. He asked the President to use the reconsideration power because the CBI is investigating the alleged VIP angle in Ankita Bhandari’s murder. The article says the President may ask for reconsideration, but does not describe any action taken afterward.

The constitutional consequence is that reconsideration is not an unrestricted veto. If the Council of Ministers repeats its advice, the President must act according to that advice. This final effect is a general constitutional rule; the article itself focuses only on Gandhi’s claim that Article 74(1) permits reconsideration. No repeated advice is reported here.