A controversy has erupted after activist and social media influencer Swatantra Bhardwaj allegedly claimed during a podcast that he had seriously injured the father of a student involved in the CJP protest at Jantar Mantar.
The remarks, which quickly spread online, prompted strong reactions from opposition leaders and members of the protest group. The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) organised a demonstration outside the Parliament Street police station in Delhi on Friday, demanding Bhardwaj’s arrest.
Police Add SC/ST Act Provisions
Bhardwaj has been accused of assaulting Sanjay Kumar, the father of a student protester, during the agitation over alleged examination paper leaks.
According to the FIR, a case was registered on June 23. Bhardwaj, who is from Kankarbagh in Patna, was detained by police and later released.
Following the protest on Friday, police added relevant provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to the case.
The protesters also demanded that an attempt-to-murder provision be added. Police said that decision would depend on medical and expert opinion.
The police told the activist’s representatives that further action, including arrest, would be taken according to the investigation.
What Bhardwaj Said in the Podcast
The controversy intensified after clips from a podcast featuring Bhardwaj circulated on social media.
During the conversation, he allegedly described an incident in which Kumar suffered a head injury and referred to the possibility of an attempt-to-murder charge. He also claimed that the injured man required numerous stitches and suggested that the incident could have resulted in a much more serious outcome.
Bhardwaj further claimed that he was not jailed after the incident and spoke about having political connections.
He also discussed the baton he was carrying during the protest. In a sarcastic response, he suggested that he had the appearance of a police officer.
The CJP had earlier alleged that unidentified people dressed in plain clothes were present during the demonstration and had assaulted protesters with batons.
Bhardwaj Later Cites Self-Defence
After the podcast comments attracted widespread criticism, Bhardwaj offered a different explanation for the incident.
He said his actions were motivated by self-defence and claimed that he feared being attacked by the crowd. He maintained that he had evidence in the form of video footage to support his version.
The police have said the podcast material will also be examined as part of the investigation.
Rahul Gandhi Questions Police Action
The controversy also drew a response from Rahul Gandhi after the student protester appealed publicly for help.
In a video shared on social media, the student questioned why people who openly spoke about the incident were not facing immediate arrest.
Gandhi criticised the Delhi Police and questioned whether Bhardwaj had received political protection. He also expressed support for the student and her family.
The Congress leader questioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah over why the accused individual was allegedly able to remain free despite the serious allegations surrounding the incident.
CJP Calls for Immediate Arrest
CJP representatives accused the Delhi Police of failing to take sufficiently strong action against Bhardwaj.
CJP co-convenor Saurav Das claimed that Kumar had suffered a serious head injury and argued that the circumstances justified an attempt-to-murder charge.
Das further alleged that police officials had refused to immediately add the requested provision to the FIR and had advised the protesters to approach a court.
Delhi Police Disputes Skull-Fracture Claim
Delhi Police rejected the allegation that Kumar had suffered a fractured skull.
According to the police version, the injuries were classified as simple in nature. Police said Kumar's head was allegedly struck by a kada, or metal bangle, during a confrontation.
Police stated that both Suraj Kumar, 24, and Swatantra Bhardwaj, 21, were detained and questioned in connection with the incident.
Authorities said appropriate legal action had already been initiated and that a chargesheet would be filed after completion of the investigation. Police also denied allegations that outside influence had affected the case.
What the FIR Says
The FIR provides a separate account of how the confrontation unfolded on June 23.
According to the complaint, the incident occurred at approximately 5:30 pm while Sanjay Kumar was recording the protest on his mobile phone.
Kumar reportedly said that a young man confronted him, believing that he was being recorded. Kumar explained that he was filming the demonstration rather than the individual.
The disagreement allegedly escalated when two or three other men arrived and Kumar was assaulted.
He alleged that he was struck several times on the head and hit with a hard object resembling an iron bangle.
When police arrived, they detained Suraj Kumar and Swatantra Bhardwaj, while the other individuals allegedly left the area.
Kumar was subsequently taken to RML Hospital for medical examination. The medical record mentioned two lacerated wounds on his head, according to details contained in the FIR.
Police registered the case under provisions including Section 115(2) for voluntarily causing hurt, Section 126(2) concerning wrongful restraint, and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Bhardwaj’s Earlier Social Media Posts
The latest controversy has also brought attention to Bhardwaj’s social media activity.
His Instagram account contains several posts and videos criticising the CJP-led agitation. In one video uploaded in July, he allegedly used derogatory descriptions for the protesters and called for supporters of his ideology to be given an opportunity to confront them.
The dispute comes amid continuing political tensions surrounding the CJP protest and the events that followed the agitation.
The investigation into the June 23 incident is ongoing, with the police expected to consider the available medical records, FIR, video material, podcast comments and statements from those involved before deciding on further legal action.