Punjab Police Given Ultimatum in Atishi Video Controversy Investigation
Delhi Assembly demands report on FIR related to Atishi's doctored video.
Photo by Jonah Pettrich
Delhi Assembly Speaker Vijender Gupta has given the Punjab police a three-day ultimatum to submit a detailed response regarding the FIR registered concerning an alleged doctored video of former Chief Minister Atishi, which was posted by BJP leader Kapil Mishra. Notices have been issued to the Director General of Police (Punjab), the Special DGP (Cyber Cell), and the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar. The Speaker questioned the impartiality of the investigating agency, noting that the police sought 10 days to reply despite claiming to have registered an FIR and conducted a forensic examination rapidly.
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) demanded a public apology from Mr. Mishra for allegedly committing sacrilege by circulating the video. The controversy began on January 6 during the Delhi Assembly’s Winter Session, with accusations against Ms.
Atishi for making objectionable remarks about Guru Tegh Bahadur.
Key Facts
Punjab police: 3-day ultimatum for FIR response
Atishi video: Allegedly doctored, posted by BJP leader
AAP demands: Apology from Kapil Mishra
UPSC Exam Angles
GS Paper II: Polity and Governance - Issues relating to police administration
GS Paper III: Internal Security - Role of police in maintaining law and order
Potential question types: Analytical, evaluative, and case study-based
Visual Insights
Jurisdiction of Involved Parties in Atishi Video Controversy
This map highlights the geographical jurisdiction of the Punjab Police (Jalandhar) and the location of Delhi, where the alleged doctored video originated and where Atishi serves as a legislator. It also shows the location of Kapil Mishra, the BJP leader who posted the video.
Loading interactive map...
More Information
Background
The concept of police powers and their oversight has deep roots in the evolution of modern governance. In India, the Police Act of 1861, enacted during British rule, laid the foundation for the structure of police forces. Post-independence, while the Constitution allocated 'Police' as a state subject (List II, Schedule VII), concerns about police accountability and potential misuse of power have persisted.
Various commissions, such as the National Police Commission (1977-81), have recommended reforms to ensure police independence, impartiality, and responsiveness to citizens. The Prakash Singh case (1996) led to Supreme Court directives for police reforms, including fixed tenures for police chiefs and separation of investigation from law and order functions. However, implementation remains uneven across states, highlighting the ongoing tension between state autonomy and the need for uniform standards of police conduct and accountability.
Latest Developments
Recent years have witnessed increasing scrutiny of police actions, particularly in cases involving political figures or sensitive social issues. The rise of social media has amplified public awareness and scrutiny of police conduct, leading to demands for greater transparency and accountability. Several states have initiated reforms aimed at improving police training, community policing, and grievance redressal mechanisms.
However, challenges remain in ensuring police independence from political interference and addressing issues such as custodial violence and biased investigations. The Model Police Act, drafted by the Soli Sorabjee Committee, provides a framework for comprehensive police reforms, but its adoption by states has been slow. The future likely holds continued pressure for police reforms, driven by public expectations and the need to maintain public trust in law enforcement agencies.
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional provisions related to police in India: 1. 'Police' is a subject listed in the Union List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. 2. Article 246 empowers the Parliament to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List for the whole or any part of the territory of India. 3. The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) provides the legal framework for police powers of investigation, arrest, and prosecution. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.3 only
- C.2 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: B
Statement 1 is incorrect because 'Police' is a State subject (List II). Statement 2 is incorrect as Article 246 empowers the Parliament to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the Union List and Concurrent List. Statement 3 is correct as CrPC provides the legal framework for police powers.
2. In the context of police reforms in India, what was the primary objective of the Prakash Singh case directives issued by the Supreme Court?
- A.To increase the financial allocation for police modernization
- B.To ensure police independence and operational autonomy
- C.To enhance the training infrastructure for police personnel
- D.To establish a national-level police recruitment board
Show Answer
Answer: B
The Prakash Singh case directives aimed to ensure police independence from political interference and to provide operational autonomy to police forces, thereby enhancing their professionalism and effectiveness.
3. Which of the following committees/commissions is NOT directly associated with recommendations on police reforms in India?
- A.National Police Commission
- B.Ribeiro Committee
- C.Veerappa Moily Commission
- D.Sarkaria Commission
Show Answer
Answer: D
The Sarkaria Commission primarily dealt with Centre-State relations, while the National Police Commission, Ribeiro Committee, and Veerappa Moily Commission specifically focused on police reforms.