‘My Name Should Have Been in the FIR’: Rohit Pawar Targets Pune Police Over Case Against 15 MPSC Protesters
Reported by Mubarak Ansari
Pune, 9th October 2026: NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar) MLA Rohit Pawar has criticised Pune Police after Vishrambaug police registered a case against 15 people participating in the ongoing Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) protest in Pune, calling the action unjust and alleging that the FIR contains incorrect information.
The protest, which has continued for nine days at S M Joshi Bridge, is demanding the resignation of MPSC chairman Vivek Bhimanwar. Pawar, who has been leading the agitation, has not been named in the FIR.
Reacting to the police action, Pawar said the cases against students were unjustified and alleged that some people who were not present at the protest site had also been named. He announced that a team of lawyers would be formed to provide legal assistance to the students and asserted that the agitation would continue regardless of the cases or possible arrests.
“Students who are peacefully protesting for their rights are being treated as if they were terrorists or Naxalites,” Pawar said, alleging that the police were acting under political pressure.
FIR Alleges Traffic Obstruction, Violation of Prohibitory Orders
Vishrambaug police have registered a case against 15 people, including student representatives Pramod Patil, Akshay Kamble and Aniket Deshmane, over a gathering outside Indulal Complex on Shastri Road in Navi Peth on October 1.
According to the police complaint, the protesters assembled without fresh permission despite prohibitory orders being in force. The FIR alleges that the gathering obstructed traffic on the public road and that some protesters continued sitting on the road despite repeated instructions from police officers to clear the way.
The complaint further alleges that the gathering caused traffic congestion and inconvenienced commuters. Police have also alleged that the protesters failed to comply with instructions to disperse.
The case has been registered under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Maharashtra Police Act.
Rohit Pawar Questions Cancellation of Protest Permission
Pawar questioned the police decision to register cases against the protesters, arguing that the authorities had earlier granted permission for the agitation.
According to the account of events cited in the complaint, student representatives had approached the Pune Police Commissioner’s office on September 25 seeking permission for a protest scheduled for October 2. Permission was subsequently granted on September 26, subject to conditions, for a proposed location.
The police complaint states that a student delegation met Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis in Mumbai on September 30. Following discussions, the representatives informed the police in writing that the October 2 protest had been put on hold. Police subsequently informed them that the earlier permission stood cancelled.
However, protesters assembled outside Indulal Complex on October 1, leading to the present case.
Pawar alleged that the police had initially permitted the protest but subsequently acted against the students under pressure from the state government. He also said three fresh applications had been submitted seeking permission for the agitation.
In a strongly worded reaction, Pawar said he was disappointed that his name had not been included in the FIR. He alleged that the police were attempting to provoke the protesters and urged students to remain peaceful.
He also claimed that the FIR contained errors in the identification and description of individuals. Pawar said he had consulted a Supreme Court lawyer, who had told him that the cases were unlikely to jeopardise the students’ futures.
Pawar reiterated that the agitation would continue and appealed to young people who could not travel to Delhi to come to Pune and support the MPSC students.
Lawyer Asim Sarode Alleges Students Were Wrongly Named
Legal expert Asim Sarode also criticised the police action, alleging that the FIR included the names of people who were not present at the protest site.
Sarode claimed that the charges were intended to criminalise the students’ agitation and weaken the movement. He also disputed allegations concerning the collection or use of stones during the protest, asserting that no student had picked up stones.
Sarode said the offences invoked in the case carried relatively limited prison terms and were bailable. He indicated that legal recourse, including seeking bail where necessary, would be available to the accused.
He further alleged that the FIR was fabricated to break the students’ resolve and that the police were acting under political pressure. These claims have not been independently established.
View this post on Instagram
Protesters Vow to Continue Agitation
The registration of the FIR has intensified the dispute between the protesting students and the police. Pawar said legal assistance would be provided to the accused and that the protesters would pursue the matter in court.
The police allegations and the claims made by Pawar and Sarode remain contested. The FIR does not, by itself, establish the guilt of those named, and the allegations will be subject to legal proceedings.
