• The post sharing the video is captioned, "Allegations of Delhi Police assaulting students! Videos surfacing from the protest have raised serious questions about police action."

(An archived version of a similar claim can be found here.)

Is it true?: No, the video is old and unrelated to the CJP protests in Delhi.

How did we find out?: We ran a reverse image search using Google Lens and found a video uploaded on 9 August 2026, with visuals similar to the viral video.

• The video, uploaded to Facebook, was captioned, "A scuffle broke out between a woman and administrative personnel; the woman slapped a female constable and tore her uniform. A video of the incident is going viral rapidly, though the location has not yet been confirmed."

The first round of CJP's protests demanding former Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan concluded with the latter's resignation on 25 July 2026, and this video was shared after that.

While there are widespread visuals about police excesses against protesters and the media, including The Quint's journalists being harassed and detained, this video is old and is not related to any of the recent protests in Delhi.

Conclusion: Though we could not establish the context of the video in the claim, we can confirm that it is old and unrelated to the CJP protests in Delhi.

(Not convinced of a post or information you came across online and want it verified? Send us the details on WhatsApp at 9540511818 , or e-mail it to us at webqoof@thequint.com and we'll fact-check it for you. You can also read all our fact-checked stories here.)

• ऐसे में सोशल मीडिया पर एक वीडियो शेयर किया जा रहा है जिसमें कुछ महिला पुलिसकर्मियों और कुछ महिलाओं के बीच खींचातानी दिखाई गई है, इस वीडियो को CJP के हालिया प्रदर्शन का बताकर शेयर किया जा रहा है.

इस फेसबुक पोस्ट (आर्काइव) पर इस वीडियो को 10 लाख से ज्यादा बार देखा जा चुका है.

क्या यह दावा सही है ? नहीं, यह दावा सही नहीं है.

• वायरल वीडियो का जंतर-मंतर या कॉकरोच जनता पार्टी के प्रदर्शन से कोई संबंध नहीं है.

• वायरल वीडियो का संबंध दिल्ली के रोहिणी में बुध विहार में गणेश नाम की युवक की हत्या की घटना से है.

हमने सच का पता कैसे लगाया ? हमने वायरल वीडियो पर गूगल लेंस की मदद से इमेज सर्च ऑप्शन का इस्तेमाल किया. हमारी सर्च में हमें journalist_vijaythakur नाम के इंस्टाग्राम यूजर के अकाउंट पर यह वीडियो मिला, जिसे 01 अगस्त 2026 को अपलोड किया गया था.

• इस वीडियो के कैप्शन में लिखा था, "रोहिणी , बुद्ध विहार में हिन्दू युवक की मौत के बाद ...पुलिस से भिड़े परिजन."

हमारी सर्च में हमें कुछ अन्य सोशल मीडिया पोस्ट्स (यहां और यहां) भी मिली जहां यह वीडियो अपलोड किया गया था और इसके बारे में लिखा था कि, "दिल्ली के रोहिणी के बुध विहार इलाके में युवक की हत्या के बाद पुलिस से भिड़ी महिलाएं और उनके बीच हाथापाई भी हुई."

यहां से अंदाजा लेकर हमने इससे संबंधित कीवर्ड्स सर्च किए, हमारी सर्च में हमें पंजाब केसरी और Delhi Uptodate News नाम के यूट्यूब चैनलों पर इस घटना से जुड़ी रिपोर्ट्स मिलीं.

• इन रिपोर्ट्स के मुताबिक रोहिणी के बुध विहार में 01 अगस्त 2026 को गणेश नामक युवक का शव मिलने के बाद इलाके में तनाव फैल गया था और विरोध प्रदर्शन के दौरान परिजनों की पुलिस के साथ हाथापाई भी हुई थी.

इससे संबंधित कीवर्ड्स सर्च करने पर हमें ऐसी कोई विश्वसनीय न्यूज रिपोर्ट या पोस्ट नहीं मिली जिसमें इस वायरल वीडियो को कॉकरोच जनता पार्टी या किसी अन्य प्रदर्शन का बताया गया हो.

निष्कर्ष: दिल्ली के रोहिणी में महिला पुलिसकर्मियों और महिलाओं के बीच हुई हाथापाई के वीडियो को कॉकरोच जनता पार्टी के प्रदर्शन का बताकर भ्रामक दावों के साथ शेयर किया जा रहा है.

(अगर आपके पास भी ऐसी कोई जानकारी आती है, जिसके सच होने पर आपको शक है, तो पड़ताल के लिए हमारे वॉट्सऐप नंबर  9540511818 या फिर मेल आइडी webqoof@thequint.com पर भेजें. सच हम आपको बताएंगे. हमारी बाकी फैक्ट चेक स्टोरीज आप यहां पढ़ सकते हैं.)

• In the video, she purportedly questions the CJP and its supporters about why their loud protest campaign demanding the CEC removal 'failed so badly' before the Supreme Court.

• She called out 'double standards,' asking why they labelled anybody opposing them as 'dictators' and 'Godi media', while extending her full support to Gyanesh Kumar "against this political intimidation," while challenging protesters to bring proper proof to the court instead of just making noise.

(An archive of another post sharing this claim can be seen here.)

But...?: The video is an AI-generated one.

How did we find out the truth?: An Instagram logo on the video mentioned the username Sifat Sangh.

• We went to the account to look for the video, and found that it was shared on 7 October 2026.

• On comparing this video to other posts shared by the account, especially one showing photographs of the woman in question, show that the person in the video looks somewhat different from the person in the video.

• When one carefully listens to the video, it can be seen that the speech patterns throughout the video are similar to those in tracks generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI).

• Due to the visual mismatch and the speech pattern, we ran the video through AI-generated content detectors.

• Hive Moderation's tool gave the video element a 99.9 percent score and the audio track a 99.4 percent likelihood of being AI-generated.

Similarly, Hiya's Deepfake Voice detector gave the audio an authenticity score of three out of 100, noting that the audio was likely a deepfake.

• We then ran the video through Google's SynthID detector, a tool to detected digital watermarks left by AI tools.

• It noted that the video was made or edited using Google's AI tools.

Conclusion: An AI-generated video is being shared with the misleading claim of it being a real video of a young woman criticising the CJP.

(Not convinced of a post or information you came across online and want it verified? Send us the details on WhatsApp at 9540511818 , or e-mail it to us at webqoof@thequint.com and we'll fact-check it for you. You can also read all our fact-checked stories here.)

According to Bar and Bench, the decision to de-notify Jantar Mantar and designate new protest sites was made in direct alignment with the committee’s recommendations. The order specified that the Ministry of Home Affairs’ committee was tasked with identifying proper alternative venues to uphold citizens’ rights to organize protests and demonstrations in place of the existing designated site.

As reported by The Indian Express, the official notice from the Delhi Police Commissioner stated, “Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, had constituted a Committee to examine alternative proper venues for citizens' right for organising protest/demonstrations in place of the existing ‘designated site’.” The notice further confirmed that the three new venues were selected based on the committee’s findings.

Committee recommendations were implemented after detailed review of available spaces and logistical considerations. The Delhi Police indicated that revised standard operating procedures for protests at the new venues would be communicated in due course to ensure clarity for organizers and participants.

Further details on the committee’s formation and mandate were provided in official circulars, which reiterated that the Ministry of Home Affairs initiated the process to safeguard the right to protest while addressing concerns related to public order and urban management.

“Based on the Committee's recommendations, Jantar Mantar as a protest venue has been de-notified. Three new venues viz Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground, East Delhi have been designated as new venues for organizing protest/demonstrations,” the official order stated.

Implementation of these changes was highlighted as a significant development in the context of citizens’ constitutional rights. Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution protect the right to free speech and peaceful assembly, though these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order.

Revised procedures for protest management are expected to be issued to ensure that demonstrations at the new venues comply with legal and administrative requirements.

Authorities confirmed the transition to new protest sites as part of ongoing efforts to balance the right to protest with the need for public safety and order in the national capital.

“Detailed and revised SOP for protests at the three newly designated venues will be issued separately,” the order further clarified.

Public communication regarding the new venues emphasised transparency in the process and the government’s intent to facilitate lawful demonstrations while minimizing disruptions to city life.

Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.

Madrasas in India are witnessing continued action. In one Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled state after another, efforts are being made to impose stricter regulations on madrasas. In some cases, they are described as illegal; in others, action is being taken in the name of reform, while questions are being raised about their curriculum, eventually leading to the sealing of institutions that impart Islamic knowledge.

Currently, a series of actions against madrasas is underway in West Bengal. Uttarakhand, too, recently abolished its Madarsa Board under the Uniform Civil Code, and Uttar Pradesh has continued to subject these religious institutions to various forms of scrutiny. A petitioner in the Rajasthan High Court also suggested that the state should prepare a syllabus for madrasas up to the primary and upper-primary levels.

What is equally concerning is the nature of the statements being made about religious institutions, which often appear to reflect a limited understanding of their actual purpose and the reasons for their continued existence.

Amid all these debates, however, little attention is being paid to the key questions. First, in what ways do these attacks amount to an attack on Muslim identity. Second, what will happen to the students and teachers associated with these madrasas? These important questions remain largely overlooked while the rest of the debate continues.

Modernisation of Madrasas

Madrasas are educational institutions established and run by the Muslim community to impart knowledge of Islam, the Holy Qur’an, Islamic law and jurisprudence, Hadith, and related subjects. Across the world, irrespective of the school of thought under which they are established, they share this fundamental purpose. Any reform that undermines this basic structure and purpose cannot be considered genuine reform; rather, it risks eroding the very identity and defining character of these spaces.

The debate over reform is not new; it existed well before the BJP’s rise to power in 2014. The UPA government, too, addressed the competing concerns surrounding the modernisation of madrasas in India and the need to improve employment opportunities for their students.

However, rather than advocating the closure of these institutions, policymakers focused on introducing modern subjects, upgrading infrastructure, and expanding educational opportunities. Furthermore, initiatives such as the National Monitoring Committee for Minority Education (NMCME) and the Scheme for Providing Quality Education in Madrasas (SPQEM) were introduced to support these institutions in incorporating modern subjects and vocational training into their curricula and developing into accredited study centres offering education at the primary, secondary, and senior secondary levels.

However, it is true that all these initiatives remained largely confined to paper, with little or no work being done on the ground, and the situation did not improve. Like the Sachar Committee Report, the recommendations of the NMCME did not receive the attention required to bring about meaningful improvements. Another scheme, the Infrastructure Development in Minority Institutions (IDMI), was also introduced, but there is hardly any evidence of its implementation.

Nevertheless, madrasas continued to function under the same conditions. Muslim children still receive education there, while some people find employment in these institutions, albeit at meagre salaries.

More importantly, children studying in madrasas generally come from financially weaker backgrounds and often cannot afford private schools, while the condition of government schools is already well known. Teachers working there are also trained to function within the same educational structure. If this opportunity is also taken away from these children and teachers, what will happen to them in particular, and a community that is already educationally and economically disadvantaged?

However, the steps being taken now raise questions that go beyond the concerns of children studying and teachers working in madrasas. History offers several examples of governments taking action against madrasas in the name of reform, with consequences far more devastating than people had anticipated.

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, in 1924, too, insisted on the Unification of Education in Turkey, which aimed to centralise the education system by abolishing institutions imparting traditional Islamic education. It eventually raised serious concerns about classical Islamic knowledge, control over institutions and their curricula, and state intervention in religious education.

There are other examples, too, which show how such coercive attempts to reform or unify Islamic education, sometimes in a secular setup, can hamper Islamic intellectual heritage, move religious knowledge into informal spaces, and restrict Islam to customs and practices.

And whenever such attempts have been made, the question has invariably been raised: Why is there a need to modernise madrasas? If the objective of modernisation is merely to introduce modern subjects and make students employable, this can be achieved within the existing structure as well. Attempts to unify or bring them under greater control, therefore, appear to be aimed at dismantling their existing structure or targeting Muslim identity.

Who Decides?

Yogendra Sikand’s work, titled Voices for Reform in the Indian Madarsas, highlights that Muslim reformers supported the introduction of subjects such as mathematics and science while maintaining the Islamic character of these institutions. They also opposed government-led reforms because of concerns over autonomy, state control, and the dilution of religious identity. The madrasa structure needs to be preserved for imparting knowledge of Islam, and any idea of reform needs to be discussed with the community running these institutions.

Looking at the action now being taken against madrasas, it seems that this is a direct attack on these institutions and, ultimately, on the identity of Indian Muslims. These institutions are sites of everyday Muslim social life, and delegitimising them simply means discrediting cultural memory, intellectual tradition and weakening the educational and cultural spaces through which the Muslim community preserves and reproduces its collective identity.

The closure of madrasas or state control over their functioning raises another significant concern: who decides what kind of knowledge is legitimate for Muslims? At a time when Muslims are subject to various forms of injustice, including social, political, and economic injustices, these actions appear more like a form of epistemic injustice, in which their traditions and institutions, such as madrasas and mosques, are denied legitimacy and pushed to the margins.

(Shafey Anwarul Haque is a Lucknow-based academic, researcher and translator. His work focuses on minority and human rights issues, media representations of Muslims, identity politics, and the role of media in shaping public discourse and so on. The views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same)

Perhaps the most defining visual of the 10 October protest was of right-wing goons assaulting a young protester in Central Delhi in the presence of Delhi Police personnel. Four men have now been arrested in connection with the violence, according to a report in the Indian Express.

They have been identified as Raman Saini, 50; Vivekanand alias Vivek, 32; Kapil Kumar, 27; and Ravinder Singh alias Govind Hindu, 35. The four accused claim to be members of the right-wing Hindu Raksha Dal. The outfit's head, Pinki Chaudhary, has also claimed that they belong to his organisation.

The Cockroach Janta Party, which had called the 10 October protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, has accused the Delhi Police of colluding with the attackers.

Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi accused the Delhi Police of "descending into thuggery and helping the goons.

Right-Wing 'Influencers'

The man in the white shirt attacking the protester, has been identified as Ravindra Singh who also goes by the names of Ravindra Govinda, Govind Hindu, Ravindra Hindu or Govinda Gujjar.

Ravindra hails from Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh and he has posted pictures with the BJP MLA from Loni, Nand Kishore Gujjar. Gujjar is a known favourite among local Hindutva outfits, especially those involved in cow-vigilantism. Ravindra himself claims to be a 'Gau Rakshak'. Pictures of Ravindra with Hindu Raksha Dal chief Pinki Chaudhary are also being circulated online.

Ravindra has also been photographed with BJP MLA Nand Kishor Gurjar in the past.

In another video, he was seen saying, "upar se adhikaari bohot jaante hain mujhe...hum police ke liye khade hain.." (People in the higher ups know me, I am standing here with the police).

The man in the dark maroon shirt assaulting the protester, is said to be Raman Saini also known as Raman Hindu or Raman Sanatani. According to some social media users, he hails from Burari in North Delhi and runs a Wifi connection franchise. On Sunday morning, Pinki Chaudhary put out a post on X claiming that both men belong to his outfit.