In late July 2026, a video of Ruchika Singh (also referred to in some reports as a Noida/Faridabad resident) recorded during protests at Jantar Mantar in Delhi went viral. The protests were linked to NEET-related issues and organized or associated with the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP).
What the Video Shows
In the clip, Ruchika is seen speaking on camera and allegedly using strong, abusive, and objectionable language directed at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as well as references involving a woman political leader and the Prime Minister’s late mother. The video spread rapidly across Instagram, X, YouTube, and WhatsApp.
Legal Action
- A Zero FIR was registered (initially in Noida/Expressway police station) on a complaint by Ghaziabad-based advocate Smriti Singh Chandel.
- The case was transferred to Delhi Police for investigation.
- Provisions cited include sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita related to intentional insult, statements conducing to public mischief, and defamation.
Apology and Conflicting Details
Ruchika later released an apology video in which she appears with folded hands, expresses deep regret, calls her remarks “unforgivable,” and claims she is only 15 years old. She said she had gone to Connaught Place with friends, encountered the protest, was influenced by people around her who were using abusive language, and was encouraged to speak on camera. She stated she did not upload the original video herself and apologized to the entire nation.
There is a notable discrepancy: earlier reports and the FIR described her as around 25 years old, while her apology video claims she is 15. Background details also mention she had briefly worked or trained at a salon under a different name.
Her family also issued an apology. Prime Minister Modi publicly described the abuse (including remarks about his late mother) as a “cultural shock” but appealed for leniency toward young people, saying mistakes happen at a young age and that it is an opportunity for correction rather than pure punishment.
Public Debate
The episode triggered sharp online debate about free speech, the limits of protest language, selective outrage, and the role of content creators versus genuine protesters. Some defended it as heated protest speech; others condemned it as crossing into personal and indecent abuse of a constitutional office.
Note: This is a public protest-related controversy involving alleged abusive language, not a private or intimate “leak” video.
The matter remains under police investigation as of the latest reports.
