Brittas hits back as JDU MP flags ‘foreign role’ in CJP stir

Rajya Sabha turned sharp on Thursday when Janata Dal (United) MP Sanjay Kumar Jha alleged a “foreign role” in the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) sit-in at Jantar Mantar, and CPI(M) MP John Brittas answered that Indians working in Dubai remain citizens with a right to protest.

The exchange came during debate on the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 — the same day the Upper House cleared the Bill after a stormy sitting that also saw Opposition MPs demand answers on force used against student protesters.

What Jha said

Jha told the House that while the CJP protests were on, he had watched a Malayalam television channel report that “some Dubai-based businessmen had secured travel tickets for 23 people and helped them participate in the protests,” The Indian Express reported.

He separated the student cause from the people he wanted probed. “What relation did these people have with NEET? The demand of students and their sentiments are genuine. But it is a matter of investigation as to who were the people who infiltrated the protest and were trying to hijack it,” he said, according to the paper.

Kerala MPs on the Opposition benches objected at once. The Chair did not allow interventions while Jha was still speaking. Later, CPI(M) MP A. A. Rahim asked that Jha authenticate the Malayalam-channel claim and said the allegation lacked facts. The Chair said it would examine the matter.

Brittas: citizens, not outsiders

Brittas argued that travellers from Dubai were Indian citizens. “They are citizens of India. Figuratively, Dubai is the 15th district of Kerala. They have every right to come to India and participate in a protest. A wrong message should not go from this House,” he said, per The Indian Express.

He did not endorse any specific travel arrangement. He rejected the framing that Gulf-based Indians at a student protest equal foreign interference.

Same sitting, wider clash

A companion Indian Express report on the Bill’s passage records that Opposition MPs also sought an apology from Union Minister Giriraj Singh after he alleged foreign funding during the protests — a separate treasury-bench charge in the same monsoon-session fight over the student agitation and paper-leak law.

Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge used the Bill debate to demand Home Minister Amit Shah’s resignation over police action against students, including alleged pellet-gun injuries. Union Minister Jitendra Singh, moving the Bill, said the amendments reflected a “zero tolerance” policy after recent events and asked parties to help pass the law. The Bill cleared Rajya Sabha a day after Lok Sabha.

Jha also answered Opposition points on Sanjeev Mukhiya, saying the CBI had given Mukhiya a clean chit in the 2024 NEET paper-leak case last year but that Mukhiya remained in Buxar jail on other cases. He urged the House not to treat paper leaks as a party scoreboard: students, he said, want to know if hard work is secure.

What we can verify

• On 30 July 2026, during Rajya Sabha debate on the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, JD(U) MP Sanjay Kumar Jha alleged infiltration of the CJP Jantar Mantar protest with help from Dubai-based businessmen who, he said a Malayalam channel reported, booked tickets for 23 people. — The Indian Express
• Jha called student demands genuine and asked for investigation of alleged hijackers, not a blanket attack on the NEET cause. — The Indian Express
• CPI(M) MP John Brittas replied that those who came from Dubai were Indian citizens and that, “figuratively,” Dubai is Kerala’s 15th district; CPI(M) MP A. A. Rahim sought authentication of Jha’s channel claim. — The Indian Express
• The same sitting cleared the anti-paper-leak amendment Bill; Opposition benches also challenged Giriraj Singh’s foreign-funding allegation and pressed Amit Shah over force used on students. — The Indian Express

What remains unverified

• The Malayalam television report Jha cited, the identity of any Dubai-based businessmen, and whether 23 people travelled on tickets they paid for are [unverified] beyond Jha’s floor statement; no independent outlet has published the channel clip or passenger list in the sources reviewed here.
• Any proven “foreign role,” foreign funding, or organised infiltration of the CJP Jantar Mantar protest remains [unverified]; Brittas and Rahim contested the charge in the House.
• Whether the Chair’s promised examination of Rahim’s authentication demand produced a ruling is [unverified] at the time of writing.