Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke has questioned the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against a Noida woman over her alleged abusive remarks directed at Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a protest, alleging that the law is being applied selectively in politically sensitive cases. His comments have reignited debate over the balance between freedom of expression, political criticism, and the use of criminal law in public discourse.
The controversy arose after a video circulating on social media allegedly showed Ruchika Singh making objectionable remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a CJP protest held in Delhi. Following the circulation of the video, Smriti Singh filed a complaint, leading to the registration of a Zero FIR in Noida. The case has been booked under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) related to insult, mischief, and defamation. A Zero FIR allows police to register a complaint irrespective of where the alleged offence took place before transferring it to the appropriate police station with jurisdiction for further investigation.
Responding to the FIR, Dipke said that while he does not support the use of abusive language in public or political discourse, criminal prosecution should not automatically follow merely because offensive words were used. In a statement shared on social media platform X, he questioned whether legal standards were being applied equally to all citizens. He argued that the incident raises broader concerns about whether ordinary citizens and political protesters face stricter legal consequences than politicians or members of the ruling establishment in comparable situations.
Also Read: Abhijeet Dipke Joins Rahul Gandhi In Demanding Amit Shah’s Resignation Over July 20 Police Action
Dipke also alleged that similar instances involving remarks made by political leaders or supporters of the ruling party have not always resulted in comparable criminal action. According to him, the issue extends beyond a single FIR and reflects a wider concern about the consistent application of the law. He maintained that if authorities choose to prosecute offensive political speech in one case, the same legal standards should be applied irrespective of the political affiliation of the individual involved. His remarks focused on the principle of equality before the law rather than defending the language allegedly used in the protest.
The case has generated discussion on social media, with users expressing differing views on the issue. Some have argued that abusive or defamatory remarks directed at any individual, including public officials, should invite legal scrutiny and accountability. Others have questioned whether criminal provisions are the appropriate response to political speech, especially when it occurs during protests or demonstrations. The debate has also highlighted the broader issue of how authorities distinguish between protected political expression and speech that may amount to a criminal offence under existing laws.
The registration of the FIR comes at a time when political speech and online expression continue to attract close legal and public attention across India. Courts have repeatedly emphasised the importance of free speech as a constitutional right while also recognising that it is subject to reasonable restrictions under the law. As the investigation progresses, the matter is likely to remain under public scrutiny, with legal experts and political observers closely watching how the case is handled. The incident has once again brought into focus questions surrounding free expression, accountability, and the uniform enforcement of criminal law in politically charged cases.
Also Read: CJP Leaders Reveal Future Strategy After Jantar Mantar Protest, Say Fight Continues