Punjab top cops seek 10 days to respond to notice in Atishi case; Delhi Speaker turns down plea

In identical letters, the three officers had requested that 10 more days be granted to them to apprise the Speaker regarding the factual position on the issue, “without prejudice, in the interest of natural justice”.

The Atishi audio-video case revolves around a disputed video clip from the Delhi Legislative Assembly proceedings on January 6. The clip captured a speech by Atishi, the Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the Delhi Assembly, during a debate on a government programme commemorating the 350th martyrdom day of Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth Sikh Guru. Later, BJP leaders alleged that she had made derogatory remarks insulting the Sikh Guru, a charge she and the party denied.

Earlier, addressing a press conference on December 12, the DGP had refrained from commenting on the merits of the case, saying that the role of the DGP is in policy-making.

Punjab BJP president Sunil Jakhar called the latest development “fishy”. In a statement on his handle on X, Jakhar said, “Isn’t it ironic that Punjab Police is asking for 10 days to respond to Delhi Assembly Speaker’s notice regarding a video of Delhi’s former CM Aatishi, which police was able to forensically examine within a day. Meanwhile, police is silent on the demand for an investigation into a video allegedly showing sacrilegious conduct of Punjab CM. Is there something fishy going on?”

How the Atishi clip row spiralled

The Atishi audio-video case controversy escalated when BJP leaders, including Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra, shared the clip on social media, alleging that Atishi made derogatory remarks insulting the Sikh Guru.

The AAP countered by claiming the video was “edited and doctored” to misrepresent her statements. This led to legal action by the Punjab Police and a subsequent privilege dispute raised by the Delhi Assembly.

The video quickly went viral, with shares from prominent figures across parties, including the BJP, Congress, and Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD). The AAP accused the BJP of deliberate misinformation, labelling it as an act of “sacrilege” against Sikh sentiments, and organised protests in Delhi and Punjab, demanding action against those spreading the allegedly fake video.

The Punjab Police intervened swiftly amid concerns over potential threats to communal harmony. On the night of January 7—approximately 10 hours after the clip was widely shared and following Atishi’s social media post denouncing it—the Jalandhar Police Commissionerate registered an FIR against Mishra and unidentified others.

The case was filed under sections 196 (1) (Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.), 353 (1) (b) (Statements conducing to public mischief), 353 (2) (Circulates any statement or report containing false information, rumour or alarming news, including through electronic means) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 66 (C) (Fraudulently or dishonestly making use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000.

The complainant named Mishra, SAD president Sukhbir Singh Badal and Congress MLAs Pargat Singh and Sukhpal Singh Khaira for having posted the video on their handles.

What led to the breach-of-privilege notices

The Jalandhar Police downloaded the video from Mishra’s X account and forwarded it to the Punjab Forensic Science Laboratory (PFSL) in Mohali for examination. A forensic report dated January 9 concluded that the video was manipulated—specifically, Atishi had not uttered the word “Guru” or “gurus” in her speech. The police emphasised that the investigation was conducted scientifically to verify the authenticity.

The Delhi Assembly viewed the Punjab Police’s use of the Assembly video clip as a violation of its privileges, since the footage is considered proprietary to the House and part of official proceedings. On January 10, the Assembly Secretariat issued breach-of-privilege notices to the three senior Punjab Police officers.

The notices demanded explanations within 48 hours on why the FIR was registered using Assembly footage without authorisation. On January 12, Delhi Assembly Speaker Vijender Gupta extended the deadline by three days, giving the officers until January 15 to respond. Gupta described the FIR as “unfortunate” and a direct infringement on the House’s dignity, emphasising that external agencies cannot interfere in Assembly matters.