ON
← Back to feed
'When will BJP face cases?': CJP's Abhijeet Dipke on FIR against woman over anti-Modi remarks
India🏛️ PoliticsProgressive9 hr. ago

'When will BJP face cases?': CJP's Abhijeet Dipke on FIR against woman over anti-Modi remarks

Abhijeet Dipke, founder of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), criticized the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) against a woman for using abusive language against Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a protest. He argued that if such language were sufficient grounds for legal action, BJP leaders and the party's IT cell would face numerous cases due to their alleged past use of abusive language against women. Dipke pointed to instances involving BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, suggesting inconsistent application of the law. He further contended that abusive language itself is not a criminal offense but rather a matter for counseling.

Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke criticized the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) against a woman accused of using abusive language against Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a protest in Delhi. Dipke argued that if criminal cases were based solely on the use of abusive language, BJP leaders and the party’s IT Cell would face the highest number of such cases. His comments followed a recent FIR lodged against a Faridabad-based woman, who was charged with intentional insult, public mischief, and defamation after a complaint from a Ghaziabad resident. The complaint included videos allegedly showing the woman using abusive language against Modi during a July 23 protest at Jantar Mantar. The FIR was filed in response to a complaint alleging that the woman had used abusive language against Modi. According to the complaint, the videos depicted her making derogatory remarks during the protest. However, Dipke challenged the selective application of the law, pointing out that similar behavior by BJP officials had gone unpunished. In a video message, he questioned why criminal action was being taken in this instance while BJP functionaries who had allegedly used abusive language against women had not faced similar consequences. Dipke specifically highlighted the actions of the BJP’s IT Cell, accusing its members of routinely hurling “vile abuses” at women online. He noted that some members of the IT Cell had “proudly written ‘followed by PM Modi’ in their bios,” suggesting a pattern of disrespectful conduct. He emphasized that such individuals had engaged in abuse “in the filthiest terms” and asked when legal action would be taken against them. Dipke also referenced BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, claiming that both had used abusive language in public settings. He alleged that there was a video of Yogi Adityanath using abusive language toward an NRI cameraperson. Dipke further asserted that there were two different standards for enforcing the law, one for ordinary citizens and another for BJP leaders and their supporters. He questioned whether the legal system operated under “two different sets of laws,” implying that the state selectively enforced rules against certain groups. He also stated that abusive language, while objectionable, did not constitute a criminal offense. “Using abusive language is not a crime,” he said, adding that while such behavior might be inappropriate, it should not lead to criminal prosecution unless other elements of the law were involved. Dipke claimed that if criminal cases were based purely on the use of abusive language, the BJP IT Cell and its leaders would face the most cases. “If cases were to be filed for using abusive language, then the highest number of cases would be against the BJP IT Cell, because they are the ones who have hurled the most abusive language at women,” he said. He also pointed out that BJP leaders had used abusive language for years, even within parliamentary sessions, yet had not faced legal repercussions. Following Dipke’s remarks, CJP spokespersons expressed solidarity with his position. CJP spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka shared a video on X, reportedly referencing the incident involving Yogi Adityanath. He repeated the demand for legal action against those who had used abusive language. Earlier in the day, CJP spokesperson Saurav Das had already criticized the FIR, calling it a “misuse of criminal law.” The CJP has consistently opposed what it describes as the selective enforcement of laws against critics of the government.

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.

Become a Supporter

1 reports

Hindustan Times logoHindustan TimesIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 659 hr. ago
'When will BJP face cases?': CJP's Abhijeet Dipke on FIR against woman over anti-Modi remarks

Abhijeet Dipke, founder of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), criticized the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) against a woman for using abusive language against Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a protest. He argued that if such language were sufficient grounds for legal action, BJP leaders and the party's IT cell would face numerous cases due to their alleged past use of abusive language against women. Dipke pointed to instances involving BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, suggesting inconsistent application of the law. He further contended that abusive language itself is not a criminal offense but rather a matter for counseling.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the criticism of the FIR against the woman as an argument for double standards in legal enforcement, specifically targeting the BJP and its leaders. It highlights perceived inconsistencies in how abusive language is treated depending on the speaker's political affiliation, which倾向

Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports Dipke's criticism of the FIR against the woman and his comparison to BJP leaders. It provides context about the FIR, including the charges and the complainant's claim based on videos. While there is no primary source, the information aligns with cross-source reporting

Why objectivity (65): The article presents Dipke's perspective but frames it as questioning the selective enforcement of laws. There is some editorializing in the phrasing such as 'crass' remarks and 'vile abuses,' which may reflect bias. The tone leans toward supporting Dipke's critique of the BJP, though it remains wit

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories