Kashmiri Pandit Activist Reportedly Named in Baramulla FIR Under IT Act

Kashmiri Pandit social and political activist Rakesh Handoo has raised questions over a police case registered at Police Station Baramulla, where he has reportedly been named in an FIR under provisions of the Information Technology Act. The case was reportedly registered on a complaint by Rohit Raina, a Prime Minister’s Package employee posted in the Finance Department in Baramulla.

The matter relates to FIR No. 151/2026, dated September 12, 2026. In an open letter addressed to Raina, Handoo said the FIR had been registered under Sections 66F and 84C of the IT Act. He also referred to a notice issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The notice directed Handoo to appear before the investigating officer on September 26. Handoo resides in Faridabad, Haryana. According to him, he had expressed his willingness to join the investigation through video conferencing because of the distance involved.

His letter does not establish whether the police later recorded his statement or whether any further action has been taken in the case. The allegations could not be independently verified. The police version, the contents of the original complaint and the current status of the investigation were also not available for confirmation.

The dispute comes amid continuing concerns among Kashmiri Pandit employees recruited under the Prime Minister’s rehabilitation package. These concerns include security, accommodation and the alleged circulation of employees’ personal information.

Local and national media have reported on repeated threat communications purportedly issued by an outfit calling itself the United Liberation Council (ULC). The reported threats were directed at PM Package employees serving in Kashmir.

Media reports have also highlighted demands for an investigation into the alleged leakage of employees’ personal details. They have reported calls for a comprehensive security audit of transit accommodation used by the employees.

In August, local media reported that Handoo had sought an investigation into the alleged data leak and demanded security measures for PM Package employees. A September report by media also covered fresh threats against the employees. It reported Handoo’s demand for an inquiry into the circulation of their photographs and personal information.

These reports provide the wider context of the dispute. However, they do not independently establish the allegations made by either party in the present FIR.

In his open letter, Handoo questioned why a complaint had allegedly been lodged against him under provisions that he associates with cyberterrorism and other IT-related offences. He claimed that his public statements and social media posts dealt with the safety of PM Package employees, the alleged circulation of their personal details and demands for secure residential accommodation.

Handoo also questioned whether raising concerns about the location and security of transit flats could constitute an offence. He asked whether sharing reports that had already been published by media organisations could also attract criminal liability.

These are Handoo’s arguments and do not amount to findings by an investigating agency or a court. The precise allegations and evidence contained in the FIR would be necessary to assess the legal basis for invoking the provisions mentioned in the case.

Section 66F of the Information Technology Act deals with cyberterrorism. It prescribes severe punishment, including imprisonment for life in specified circumstances. The exact scope and applicability of Section 84C would likewise need to be assessed from the FIR and the relevant statutory text.

Handoo has also referred to his activities during the early years of militancy in Kashmir. He claimed that he was among nine Kashmiri Pandit youths who assisted security forces in 1990. He said his work during that period had been documented in publications and in a book about his activities.

He further referred to his participation in the 2008 Assembly election from Hazratbal. Handoo also recalled his support for PM Package employees following the targeted killings of Rahul Bhat, Rajni Bala and Deepak Chand.

The activist said he had supported the employees’ demands for better security, appropriate accommodation and a review of the transfer policy. He said he backed these demands during protests held in Kashmir and outside the Union Territory.

Handoo said his dispute was primarily with the administration. According to him, the main issues were delays in providing secure accommodation and the failure to address the rehabilitation concerns of Kashmiri Pandit employees.

He alleged that hundreds of flats had remained incomplete or unavailable for years despite repeated assurances. Handoo argued that the alleged circulation of the employees’ personal details required a thorough investigation.

He said such an investigation should establish the source of the information and determine whether confidential records had been compromised. His letter links the alleged data leak with the wider security concerns being raised by PM Package employees.

Earlier reporting by media has highlighted concerns over the location, quality and allotment of quarters for PM Package employees. The broader issue of security has also remained a recurring concern following threats against the community.

Handoo has urged Raina and members of the PM Package community to distinguish between criticism of administrative decisions and actions that may attract criminal liability. He has maintained that he is willing to cooperate with the investigation and place his version on record.

The police have not been independently reached for a response to the allegations in Handoo’s letter. The complainant’s version and the investigating agency’s account remain necessary to present a complete picture of the case.

The matter raises questions about the balance between legitimate public advocacy, the protection of personal information and the application of cybercrime laws. Any conclusion regarding the allegations against Handoo will depend on the evidence gathered during the investigation and the applicable law.