BJP seeks clarification from Rahul Gandhi over Kapil Sibal’s 2010 award event allegedly linked to Jeffrey Epstein; Congress denies any connection.

A fresh political controversy erupted on Saturday after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) questioned Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over claims related to former Union Minister Kapil Sibal receiving an international award in 2010 at an event allegedly linked to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

BJP national spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari, along with other party leaders, alleged on social media that Sibal who was serving as Union HRD Minister during the UPA government—had been honoured at a New York event that, according to them, had funding connections to Epstein. The party also attempted to draw a political link by referring to Sibal’s past association with the Congress leadership.

Kapil Sibal, now an independent Rajya Sabha MP after leaving the Congress in 2022, rejected the allegations as “rubbish.” Congress leaders, including media and publicity head Pawan Khera, dismissed the claims, stating that the award in question was the Stephen P. Duggan Award for Mutual Understanding, presented for contributions to global educational collaboration. They asserted that the ceremony was a public event unrelated to Epstein personally.

Congress further argued that references to Sibal’s name stem from a public calendar document listing multiple New York events and do not indicate personal interaction, invitation, or direct funding by Epstein. Party leaders accused the BJP of selectively interpreting documents to create a political narrative.

No publicly available evidence has been cited showing a direct meeting or association between Sibal and Epstein. The controversy has quickly turned into a political exchange, with both sides accusing each other of diversionary tactics.

Political analysts note that such allegations often gain traction in highly polarised environments, particularly ahead of major electoral contests. For the public, distinguishing between documented facts and political interpretation becomes critical in assessing such claims.