Police said the FIRs relate to multiple incidents reported during Monday’s protest march, including a life-threatening attack on a Rapid Action Force personnel.
A scuffle breaks out during the Cockroach Janta Party's 'Sansad Chalo' protest in New Delhi. | X/@AMIT_GUJJU
A Rapid Action Force (RAF) jawan was allegedly attacked during the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) ‘Sansad Chalo’ protest in the New Delhi area, prompting Delhi Police to register a case over what officials described as a life-threatening assault.
Police sources said more than nine FIRs have been registered so far in connection with incidents reported during Monday’s protest march.
Advertisement
The FIR relating to the alleged attack on the RAF jawan has been registered separately, and the matter is under investigation.
Advertisement
According to police sources, the remaining FIRs pertain to various incidents linked to the demonstrations in different parts of the New Delhi district.
Seeing this made my blood boil.
A RAF jawan was brutally beaten by a mob of around 100 CJP protesters in the middle of the road. 💔💔
You’re only saved because of democracy, Abhijeet Dipke. Otherwise, if this had happened in Boston, you would have been rotting in jail by now. pic.twitter.com/ACQGaDSE3U
— Amit Kumar Sindhi (@AMIT_GUJJU) July 21, 2026
On Monday, Delhi Police released video footage that allegedly showed protesters throwing stones in the Connaught Place area.
According to police, the footage captured a group of youths pelting stones either from behind police barricades or by moving close to them before throwing the stones. Following the release of the video, police appealed to demonstrators to remain peaceful, avoid violence and cooperate with security personnel to maintain law and order.
🚨आज हुए उग्र प्रदर्शन के दौरान ड्यूटी पर तैनात दिल्ली पुलिस के विशेष आयुक्त, संयुक्त आयुक्त, अतिरिक्त आयुक्त और उपायुक्त रैंक के अधिकारियों सहित दिल्ली पुलिस और केन्द्रीय पुलिस बलों के कुल 118 पुलिसकर्मियों से अधिक को चोटें आई, @CPDelhi श्री अनुराग कुमार ने अस्पताल जाकर घायल… pic.twitter.com/SGpiONjbd7
— Delhi Police (@DelhiPolice) July 20, 2026
Police officials claimed that the protest turned violent after participants allegedly displayed aggressive and unruly behaviour.
According to the officials, repeated warnings and lawful directions were issued to the crowd, asking them to disperse. However, they alleged that protesters refused to leave the area and knowingly violated the prohibitory orders that were in force during the demonstration.
The latest FIRs come a day after Delhi Police had confirmed that five cases had already been registered over alleged violence, vandalism and stone-pelting during the protest at Jantar Mantar.
Investigators are also examining whether the violence was part of a planned conspiracy. Police sources said officials are reviewing more than 250 videos collected from different sources to identify people involved in the incidents and establish the sequence of events.
The cases have been registered at the Parliament Street and Connaught Place police stations under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, the Arms Act, 1959, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act.
Police said one FIR relates to the alleged operation of a drone without permission in the New Delhi district during the ongoing Parliament session.
Another case concerns an alleged conspiracy to trigger violence, with investigators claiming that several important pieces of evidence have emerged during the probe.
Two additional FIRs deal with allegations of obstructing government work, assaulting police personnel and causing damage to public property.
The FIR registered at the Parliament Street police station includes charges under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. These include Section 223(b), which deals with disobeying an order issued by a public servant or obstructing government work, Section 221 for obstructing or influencing a public servant while performing official duties, and Section 132, which relates to assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant to prevent them from carrying out their duty.
Advertisement
