For the past three days, the protester against whom a zero FIR was registered last week for her “abusive” remarks on Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and her mother have been living at an undisclosed location out of fear. Their address was doxxed on social media and widely shared by the right-leaning accounts even as false identifying details in a zero FIR have fuelled days of online targeting of the 15-year-old girl.
On July 31, the same day that the PM spoke of forgiving “misguided children” who had used abusive language at the 36-day Jantar Mantar stir, where the protester had joined other protesters against the alleged NEET paper leak, she had uploaded an apology video on social media.
“We hoped it would end the harassment,” her mother told The Hindu. Instead, the harassment intensified as fresh wave of social media posts has emerged speculating that the girl in the apology video is not the same person seen at the protest.
“I am fed up. I have lost my work. We had no option but to leave our house because police personnel and strangers started showing up,” said the mother, who earns her living by giving tuitions at home and has been raising her daughter by herself since her husband’s death in 2019.
“We don’t know when things will become normal or when we will be able to return home,” she added.
Their lawyer, Anil Kumar, said, “They cannot leave the place where they are staying right now. They are under complete lockdown.”
He claims that all details in the zero FIR registered on July 29, including the accused’s name and age, are wrong, and that she is 15, not 25 as mentioned in the FIR.
False narrative
He alleged that much of the online campaign over the past week has been driven by a zero FIR containing false personal details and other narratives that have since been amplified on social media. “The contents of the zero FIR are wrong. Neither her name nor her age is correct. She does not work at a salon. There is no younger sister.”
On July 29, Uttar Pradesh Police registered a zero FIR at the Expressway police station in Noida on the basis of a complaint filed by a Ghaziabad resident, Advocate Smriti Singh. The complaint identifies the person seen in the purported video as “Ruchika Singh”, describes her as a 25-year-old resident of Noida, and alleges that she used “abusive and objectionable” language against the PM, invoking Sections 352 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), 353(1) (statements conducive to public mischief), and 356(1) (defamation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
He also questioned the legal basis of the complaint.
“One section relates to defamation, which can ordinarily be invoked only by the person claiming to have been defamed. The other concerns public mischief. Merely alleging abusive language does not attract these provisions. There is no evidence. It will automatically be quashed,” he said.
Address shared online
“The only thing that was correct was the address, which they [complainant] probably found circulating online. The two had no option but to leave their home,” he said. The lawyer added that no one from Delhi Police has contacted them since the case was transferred from Noida to the Parliament Street police station.
When reached for comment, DCP (New Delhi) Sachin Sharma said a regular FIR in the case has not yet been registered. “We will conduct a preliminary investigation and then take a call,” he said.
Desperate call to apologise
Mr. Kumar said the mother approached him after the zero FIR was filed and address was circulated. “I know the family. I did not know about the girl earlier. The mother contacted me after the FIR started circulating and told me it was her daughter in the viral video. I suggested that they issue an apology and the same day, the girl recorded the apology. It was desperate call hoping things will get better, “ he said.
However, the narratives are only adding to the family’s distress. The mother and the daughter continue to recieve calls and messages.
Fresh round of claims
The apology video, in which the girl says it is her first and last such mistake and that she is 15, instead became the subject of a new round of speculation online. Several social media users began comparing stills from the protest footage with frames from the apology video, claiming that they featured two different girls.
One widely shared Instagram video by user Anoop Khetan, with over 1.3 million followers, analysed facial features including eyebrows, nose piercings, hair colour and teeth and speculated that the apology video featured the girl’s younger sister while another woman had attended the protest.
He further said that if the person in the apology video was indeed a minor, “there won’t be any proceedings.”
Mr. Khetan had earlier shared posts calling to share any information about the girl and later amplified the zero FIR with its picture, stressing that girl was not a minor but 25 years of age.
Several others amplified similar claims. Commentator Abhijit Iyer-Mitra wrote on X on Sunday (August 2, 2026), while quoting another speculative post, “They’re using a 15-year-old to cover up for the 25-year-old protestor – so they can invoke POCSO against anyone.”
Mr. Kumar rejected those claims. “There is no younger sister. These are all false narratives. They are only resulting in continued targeting of the girl,” he said.
Weeks of online targeting
The Hindu had earlier reported that after the student protest demanding the resignation of former Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan concluded at Jantar Mantar on July 25, videos and photographs of several women participants were circulated by multiple right-leaning social media accounts with calls seeking their identification and legal action.
The 15-year-old’s video was among the most widely shared. In the days that followed, posts claimed to identify her, carrying her purported name, city and later a copy of the zero FIR. Several posts also claimed that she worked at a salon and sought information about her whereabouts.
On July 27, The Jaipur Dialogues, a platform founded by former civil servant Sanjay Dixit, described the girl as “most wanted” and sought information that could identify her in the X post.
In an article published on its website on August 1, the platform admitted to giving calls for doxxing, stating: “We did exactly what any responsible nationalist platform must do. We posted those images on our X handle, demanded public identification of those who crossed every line of decency, and were fully prepared to back legal action.”
Published – August 04, 2026 12:56 am IST
