A BJP MLA posts a of a bleeding, weeping girl and tells his followers she is being taught a lesson. The video is actually from Varanasi, from a domestic violence case, and has nothing to do with the protest. It does not matter. The comments say: she didn’t get beaten enough.
In the two weeks since the Cockroach Janata Party’s July 20 Parliament march, more than half a dozen women and girls who appeared in clips from CJP protests have been identified across X, Instagram and Facebook – by an elected legislator, by Hindutva handles with large followings, by strangers who have sought to file police complaints and published home addresses. They face threats of rape and death.
There are other consequences too. A yoga instructor has lost many of her clients, a widowed mother has lost her tuition work, a teenager’s family home stands locked.
The case that has drawn the most television attention is that of Ruchika Singh, a 15-year-old filmed at Jantar Mantar using expletives against Prime Minister Modi, who now faces charges of defamation and “intentional insult to provoke breach of peace”. Late on Friday night, Modi posted a video saying he had been subjected to all kinds of abuse during the protests, and that he forgave everyone. She soon after – she had fallen under the influence of certain YouTubers that day, she said; she was ashamed; she apologised to him and to the country.
It did not end. Users began matching stills from the apology against footage from the protest – eyebrows, nose piercings, hair colour, teeth – to argue that the two were different girls. An account named posted several such videos. “The two girls don’t look alike,” one caption read. “Something seems fishy here.”
The case against Ruchika
Ravi Negi, the BJP MLA from East Delhi’s Patparganj constituency, known locally for turning up in Mayur Vihar to demand shopkeepers’ names, shared the Varanasi video on his social media account days after the march. He then shared a , filmed inside his own office, showing two or three men seated around him working out a girl’s address. She is a resident of Mandawali, in East Delhi, they establish. “First, we will have her summoned to the police station,” Negi says. In , he says: “We will definitely find the girl today or tomorrow. She will have to apologise in a public place. We will take legal action against her.”
The girl from Mandawali had raised questions about the gates of the Hanuman Temple in Connaught Place being shut for CJP protesters on July 20. Someone had filmed her asking. The clip was widely circulated. The temple priest has since the gates were closed because the atmosphere that day had turned volatile.
Negi is not the only one trying to trace these women protesters.
On July 29, a zero FIR was registered in Noida under Sections 352, 353(1) and 356(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It names Ruchika Singh, whose video abusing the Prime Minister had spread widely online. She has since been discussed on several TV news channels.
The complainant is Smriti Singh, who identifies herself as a Supreme Court lawyer and as the Ghaziabad district president of the women’s wing of Raghuraj Pratap Singh’s Jansatta Loktantrik Dal. Raghuraj Pratap Singh is better known as Raja Bhaiya.
The FIR records Ruchika’s home address. Asked how she got it, Smriti Singh – a native of Ballia – said she found it on social media. Asked who had posted it there, she said, “I have forgotten who shared it.”
Her Instagram account of others Ruchika; in some, men say they have located her address and that she has fled her home, and predict the police will find her soon.
Smriti Singh’s explanation for the FIR: “The language used was intolerable. Using such words for a person holding the office of Prime Minister is inappropriate for society. Our children also use social media; what would they learn from this? I am not opposed to the CJP’s movement, but during this campaign, several people emerged who appeared to use abusive language solely to increase their follower count. It is necessary to teach them a lesson.”
The Noida flat named in the FIR is locked. Amit Kumar Khari, SHO of Noida Expressway police station, earlier said: “People came to us to file the FIR, but the incident took place at Jantar Mantar. We registered the FIR and sent it to the Parliament Street Police Station.”
Some media reports claimed the Delhi Police is not filing an FIR. Indrajit, SHO of Parliament Street police station, refused to comment.
Saurav Das, national spokesperson of the Cockroach Janata Party, earlier said the criminal law had no business here: “If an individual feels their reputation has been harmed, they can file a defamation case.”
Ruchika’s lawyer, Anil Singh, said the FIR gets basic facts wrong, beginning with her age. “Several details in the FIR, including the girl’s age, are recorded incorrectly. Her birthday was just yesterday, and she has now turned 15. Her mother is a widow who used to support the household by tutoring children, but she has lost that work as well following this entire controversy. The family’s financial condition is also poor.”
“As of now, we have neither received a notice nor had any official contact from the police. If a notice arrives in the future or further legal action is taken in this matter, we will decide our next steps accordingly.”
‘I have stopped checking my Instagram’
Nishu, from Ghaziabad, spoke at a protest against the paper leak. Her remark about the Prime Minister was neither obscene nor objectionable. It has cost her her account.
