Ever since the mob went violent at the Jantar Mantar protest site, journalist and Deputy Editor of The Hindu has been repeatedly amplifying allegations that a woman protester sustained a “gunshot injury” during the 20 July 2026 Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest in Delhi, even though the available medical records and the Delhi Police’s subsequent fact-check state that the injury was caused by a blunt object and not a firearm.
The controversy stems from a series of reports published by The Hindu following the violence during the Parliament march on 20 July.
The Hindu Published Detailed Reports On Alleged Pellet Gun Use
On 22 July 2026, The Hindu published an extensive explainer on the alleged use of pellet guns and shock batons during the protests.
The report stated that at least one protester, Shaikh Irshad Mansoori, had allegedly sustained pellet gun injuries and underwent surgery to remove pellets lodged beneath his eye. It also referred to another viral video purportedly showing a woman being struck with a “shock baton” and suggested that pellet guns and shock batons appeared to have been used against civilian protesters in Delhi for the first time.
The article went on to explain pellet guns in detail, including:
- their use as so-called “non-lethal” crowd-control weapons,
- their deployment in Jammu and Kashmir after the 2010 unrest,
- the controversy surrounding pellet guns following the 2016 Burhan Wani protests,
- the introduction of plastic bullets,
- their alleged use during the 2023 Manipur violence and the 2024 farmers’ protests,
- and the specifications of shock batons carried by the Rapid Action Force (RAF).
Although Delhi Police denied using pellet guns, the article devoted significant space to discussing how RAF personnel carried such equipment and how it could allegedly have been used during the protest.
Second Report Introduced Fresh “Gunshot” Allegation
Five days later, on 27 July 2026, Vijaita Singh shared another report focusing on a 32-year-old Gurugram-based private employee identified as Nutan, who claimed she had suffered a “gunshot injury” during the protests.
The report highlighted that Nutan’s discharge summary from Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital mentioned: “Trauma to right ear? gunshot.”
The article also carried Nutan’s detailed account in which she alleged that security personnel aimed guns in her direction while she was standing near the fountain inside Jantar Mantar.
She claimed the shot grazed her ear, she lost hearing immediately, her ear required surgery, she believed she had been hit by a gun, and that personnel wearing blue uniforms had pointed weapons towards the protesters.
The report further included her allegations regarding hospital treatment and her difficulties travelling for follow-up dressing after discharge.
Police Had Already Clarified MLC Recorded Blunt Injury
The same report, however, also carried the Delhi Police’s response.
According to Delhi Police Public Relations Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Police Ranjeev Ranjan, Nutan’s Medical Legal Case (MLC) recorded the injury as being caused by a “blunt weapon” and not a firearm.
This distinction is significant because an MLC records the treating doctor’s medical findings, whereas a discharge summary may include the patient’s reported history or a provisional diagnosis at the time of admission.
Delhi Police Issued Formal Fact Check
On 29 July 2026, Delhi Police issued a formal fact-check addressing social media claims that the protester had sustained gunshot injuries.
According to the police the MLC recorded a lacerated wound in front of the right tragus; the injury was classified as simple;
the nature of injury was described as blunt; and there was no evidence of gunshot injury.
Delhi Police concluded, “The claim of gunshot injury is not supported by the medical findings on the MLC.”
FACT CHECK
Claims circulating on social media that a protester sustained gunshot injuries during the July 20, 2026 protest in Central Delhi are not corroborated by the MLC findings.
MLC records a lacerated wound in front of the right tragus, with the nature of injury described…
— Delhi Police (@DelhiPolice) July 29, 2026
The police also advised the public to verify information through authentic sources before sharing such claims.
Vijaita Singh Responded By Posting Cropped Discharge Summary
Following the Delhi Police clarification, Vijaita Singh shared a cropped image of Nutan’s discharge summary on social media.
The portion highlighted showed, “Trauma to right ear? gunshot” along with the history section mentioning an alleged gunshot injury.
She used that summary to question Delhi Police’s fact check.
However, it is noteworthy that the discharge summary itself contains a question mark (“? gunshot”), indicating that gunshot was only a suspected or alleged mechanism of injury at the time of admission rather than a confirmed medical diagnosis.
🚨What fake news Vijaita Singh won’t tell you is this!
It’s NOT the doctor saying it’s a gunshot injury it’s the patient or someone with him or her saying it and it’s suspect.
Check with your doctor friend!
Illiterate Vijaita has a long history of misinformation!
Share this! https://t.co/hET1uhLQHv pic.twitter.com/1A8l6VFKtJ
— Eminent Intellectual (@total_woke_) July 29, 2026
Medical practitioners note that question marks in clinical documentation commonly denote a provisional or unconfirmed diagnosis pending further examination.
Likewise, the history section records what the patient or accompanying persons report to doctors during admission. It is not the doctor’s final medical opinion regarding the cause of injury.
Wicked The Hindu Reporter first sows seeds of doubt by presenting cropped medical report
Gets lakhs of view
What she shows is the problem as alleged by the protestors not the final doctor diagnosis
Rather then deleting she clarifies by quoting her own tweet
Is The Hindu hell… https://t.co/LQR03vLzuX pic.twitter.com/G7lKlIJnPl
— Muji Singh Rangi (@mujifren) July 29, 2026
The final medico-legal opinion, according to Delhi Police, classified the injury as one caused by a blunt object.
Vijaita Amplified Allegation As Proof
The controversy has led to yet another instance where Vijaita’s ‘reporting’ blurred the distinction between an allegation made by the patient and a confirmed medical finding.
Repeatedly highlighting the provisional wording in the discharge summary, while the MLC ultimately concluded there was no evidence of gunshot injury, helped reinforce a narrative that security forces fired at protesters.
Instead of correcting the impression created by the earlier reports after the Delhi Police fact-check, Vijaita attempted to defend the original narrative by citing the same discharge summary rather than addressing the final medical opinion contained in the MLC.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
