The political storm over a viral video clip allegedly showing Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Atishi making remarks about Sikh Gurus took a new turn after the Punjab Police informed the Delhi Legislative Assembly Secretariat that the clip in question was doctored and misleading. The submission has intensified an already bitter confrontation between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and AAP, drawing in questions of religious sensitivity, legislative privilege, and the misuse of social media for political ends.
According to the Punjab Police, forensic analysis of the viral clip revealed that the video had been edited and manipulated before being circulated online. The police maintained that Atishi did not make the alleged remarks attributed to her and that the word “Guru,” which sparked widespread outrage, did not feature in her original speech. The findings were conveyed in response to a communication from the Delhi Assembly seeking clarity on the basis of an FIR registered in Punjab over the circulation of the clip.
The controversy erupted earlier this month after a short video clip from a Delhi Assembly session began circulating on social media. The clip, shared widely by BJP leaders and supporters, appeared to show Atishi making an objectionable comment during a discussion that included references to Sikh history and Guru Tegh Bahadur’s martyrdom. BJP leaders accused Atishi of insulting Sikh Gurus and demanded an apology, while also calling for strict action against her.
The clip triggered sharp reactions, particularly in Punjab, where Sikh religious sentiments run deep. Soon after, the Punjab Police registered an FIR against unknown persons for allegedly creating and circulating a doctored video with the intent to hurt religious sentiments and disturb communal harmony.
In its submission to the Delhi Assembly Secretariat, the Punjab Police said the viral video was not an authentic or complete record of Atishi’s speech. It claimed the clip had been selectively edited, with audio and visuals rearranged to convey a false impression. The police added that misleading captions and subtitles were used to amplify outrage.
The police also underlined that the investigation was focused on those who circulated the allegedly manipulated content on social media, and not on Atishi herself. Officials stressed that the FIR was registered to prevent the spread of misinformation and to maintain public order, particularly in a sensitive socio-political climate.
The Punjab Police submission has not settled the matter in Delhi. The Delhi Assembly Speaker has questioned the police action, raising concerns over the use of Assembly footage by an external agency without permission. BJP leaders have argued that any investigation involving Assembly proceedings amounts to a breach of legislative privilege and undermines the authority of the House.
The Speaker has indicated that the Assembly may examine the issue through its privileges committee, while also seeking further clarification on how the video was accessed and examined by Punjab authorities.
BJP vs AAP: Political Battle Lines
The issue has rapidly escalated into a full-blown political battle between the BJP and AAP. The BJP has stood by its claim that Atishi’s remarks were objectionable and has accused AAP of attempting to evade accountability by hiding behind claims of video manipulation. BJP leaders have alleged that AAP is politicising religious issues while accusing others of doing the same.
AAP, on the other hand, has termed the controversy a “manufactured outrage” driven by the BJP. Party leaders have accused the BJP of deliberately circulating fake or edited content to malign Atishi and inflame communal sentiments for political gain. Atishi herself has denied making any disrespectful remarks and has demanded that the complete, unedited footage of her speech be made public.
Beyond the immediate political sparring, the episode has reopened a broader debate on the dangers of doctored videos, the speed at which misinformation spreads online, and the ease with which religious sentiments can be weaponised in political battles. It has also highlighted unresolved questions about jurisdiction, legislative privilege, and the responsibility of political actors in sharing unverified content.
