A girl booked for allegedly using abusive language against Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a student protest has apologised in a video that has since gone viral. But her own words in the clip don't match what the police paperwork says about her.

A woman booked for allegedly using abusive language against PM Modi during a student protest has issued an apology in a video circulating widely online.

However, the apology has created a major factual question. The FIR reportedly identifies her as 25 years old, while she claims in the video that she is only 15.

Hindustan Times reported that it could not independently verify the authenticity of the viral clip. No publicly available police statement has yet resolved the age discrepancy.

What Triggered the FIR?

The case arose from a CJP protest held at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi on July 23. The protest was linked to anger over the NEET paper leak and other examination-related concerns. Police alleged that the woman used abusive and objectionable language against Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the demonstration.

A complaint was later filed at Noida’s Expressway police station. Police registered a Zero FIR because the alleged incident occurred outside their jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the Parliament Street Police Station in New Delhi. The FIR reportedly invokes Sections 352, 353(1) and 356(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. These provisions concern intentional insult, statements allegedly causing public mischief and defamation.

What She Said in the Viral Video

In the apology video, the woman says she was influenced by people around her during the student protest and made objectionable remarks against PM Modi. She describes the incident as her “first and last mistake,” apologises to the country and claims she is 15 years old.

The tone of the video is apologetic, but the recording alone does not confirm her identity, age or the circumstances under which it was made.

Reports about the woman’s alleged abusive remarks against Narendra Modi video should therefore clearly distinguish between what the FIR records and what she claims in the viral clip.

Why the Age Discrepancy Matters

The difference between 15 and 25 is legally significant. Under the Juvenile Justice Act, a person who had not completed 18 years of age on the date of an alleged offence is treated as a child in conflict with law. Such a case would ordinarily proceed through the Juvenile Justice Board rather than the regular adult criminal process.

However, her statement in the video does not settle the issue.

When age is disputed, Section 94 of the Act allows authorities to examine school or examination certificates, birth records and, when those documents are unavailable, an authorised medical age-determination test. Until that process occurs, the most accurate formulation is that the FIR reportedly records her age as 25, while the viral video contains an unverified claim that she is 15.

CJP Responds to the Police Case

The protest was associated with the Cockroach Janta Party, commonly referred to as CJP. CJP representatives condemned the alleged language but questioned whether criminal proceedings were justified. They argued that objectionable speech should not automatically lead to criminal prosecution unless it crosses the applicable legal threshold. For readers following CJP protest news, the controversy now involves two separate questions: whether the alleged remarks amount to offences under the sections invoked and whether the person named in the FIR is an adult or a minor.

PM Modi Responds to the Protest Remarks

Prime Minister Modi later referred to the incident and said abusive language had been directed at him and his late mother.

He called on people to guide and forgive young protesters rather than push them towards prolonged punishment, describing them as misguided children who should be given an opportunity to reform. His statement did not clarify the age of the woman named in the FIR or announce that the case had been withdrawn.

What Remains Unverified?

The most important unresolved issue is the woman’s age. The reporting reviewed so far does not cite a birth certificate, school record, police verification report or Juvenile Justice Board determination confirming whether she is 15 or 25. The apology video also remains independently unverified. It should not be treated as conclusive proof of either her age or the facts alleged in the FIR.

There is also no verified basis for claiming that she deliberately misstated her age. The discrepancy could arise from several possibilities, but speculation would be inappropriate without an official explanation.

What Happens Next?

The case has been transferred from Noida to the relevant police jurisdiction in New Delhi. Investigators may need to verify the person’s identity, determine her age and assess whether the alleged remarks meet the legal requirements of the BNS sections cited in the FIR. Until those steps are completed, the case should be reported as an unresolved age discrepancy—not as a confirmed criminal case against either a 15-year-old girl or a 25-year-old woman.