Delhi Police register at least 10 FIRs against alleged right-wing activists over assaults on protesters

The biggest figures are at least 10 FIRs and five arrests. The cases concern alleged assaults on protesters during demonstrations demanding the rollback of special intensive revision and the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Police acted after videos, photographs and social-media posts drew attention to the alleged attacks.

The five arrests came from separate incidents. Connaught Place police arrested Gaurav in a case registered on October 13. In another case, police arrested Raman Saini, Vivekanand alias Vivek, Kapil Kumar and Ravinder Singh alias Govind Hindu after a video showed a male protester being assaulted and a woman being attacked during the October 10 protest.

The total is not presented as a final count of all suspects. Police said other people involved were being identified and traced. CCTV footage was also being examined to establish what happened, identify participants and determine their roles before appropriate criminal cases were registered.

FIR stands for First Information Report. In India, it is the formal record police make when they receive information about an alleged cognisable offence. It sets out the basic complaint and starts the criminal investigation. The report can identify suspected offences and provide an initial account of what allegedly happened.

In this case, registering FIRs means Delhi Police formally opened cases over alleged assaults on protesters. Officers could then examine social-media material, question people, inspect CCTV footage and arrest suspects where the investigation supported that step. The article describes at least 10 such FIRs and five arrests.

An FIR is not a finding that the allegations are true. It records information requiring investigation. Police must still identify individual roles and gather evidence. Prosecutors may later bring charges, and a court decides guilt after the accused receive due process. The article does not report final court outcomes.

The demonstrations were directed at two linked demands: rolling back special intensive revision, or SIR, and seeking the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. In general electoral administration, an intensive revision is a structured review and updating of voter lists. The article names SIR but does not explain its exact rules, timing or disputed provisions.

The protesters’ stated position was that the revision should be withdrawn. They also held Gyanesh Kumar politically or administratively responsible enough to demand his resignation. The article does not provide his response, explain his specific decision-making role in SIR, or describe the protesters’ detailed objections.

These demands form the background to the reported assaults and police cases. Demonstrations continued near places including Jantar Mantar. Police action focused on alleged violence against participants, while the broader dispute over SIR and the Chief Election Commissioner’s position remained the reason for the protests.

The article names five arrested accused across separate incidents. Gaurav was arrested in a Connaught Place case linked to an alleged assault on October 13. Raman Saini, Vivekanand alias Vivek, Kapil Kumar and Ravinder Singh alias Govind Hindu were arrested after footage showed a male protester being assaulted and a woman being attacked during the October 10 protest.

The article also identifies Hindu Raksha Dal president Pinky Chaudhary, who claimed the four latter accused belonged to his organisation and said he would protect them. That claim is attributed to him; it is not presented as a court finding. Most alleged attackers in the social-media posts were described as right-wing activists.

Police are not relying only on names circulating online. They are examining CCTV footage to identify people, establish the sequence of events and determine individual roles. Officers said other accused were being traced, with appropriate criminal cases to follow against those found involved.

Citizens, activists and political organisations shared video clips and photographs on social-media platforms after the alleged assaults. The posts tagged Delhi Police and demanded action. Materials from the Cockroach Janta Party, Indian Youth Congress and other political parties and activists included social-media links and screenshots that were attached to a document seen by The Hindu.

Police said they took cognisance of these posts and registered FIRs. Videos can provide visible accounts of an incident, while photographs and screenshots can preserve posts or show injuries, people and locations. CCTV offers another source that may help establish timing, movement and the sequence of events. The article does not say every online clip was independently verified.

The police are examining CCTV and social-media material together to identify those involved and determine their roles. They said appropriate criminal cases would be registered against people found involved. Citizens were urged to tag Delhi Police in posts about assaults so officers could continue taking action.

After an FIR, police investigate the reported offence. They may collect videos, photographs and CCTV, question witnesses, identify suspects and assess each person’s alleged role. An arrest can occur during that process, but it does not end the investigation. Police may still trace other suspects and decide which legal provisions fit the evidence.

The article gives one example: four people were arrested after footage showed a male protester being assaulted and a woman being attacked. That case was registered at Kamla Market police station under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Police also said appropriate cases would be registered against people found involved.

If investigators and prosecutors proceed, the allegations can be presented in court for trial. The court—not the FIR, police, social-media posts or arrest—decides guilt. Evidence must connect an individual to an alleged act, and the accused must have due process. The article reports no final verdict.

Public videos can draw attention to violence quickly, but they may show only part of an incident. Investigators must establish when and where footage was made, whether it is complete, and who appears in it. Independent evidence matters because online posts may contain unclear images, edited clips or disputed descriptions. The article reports police examining CCTV for this reason.

Individual identification is equally important. A person visible near an assault is not automatically the person who committed it. Police must determine each suspect’s role and connect that role to evidence. In the reported case, CCTV was being used to establish the sequence of events and identify those involved, while social-media links and screenshots prompted police action.

Due process keeps investigation separate from punishment. FIRs and arrests allow allegations to be investigated, but they do not prove guilt. Careful evidence review can support appropriate charges against people actually involved while protecting others from mistaken identification. The article says police are still tracing additional suspects.