The contrasting police action has raised questions over the handling of the two sides: the alleged physical assault involving a serving minister has resulted in a non-cognisable report, while the MLA questioning the quality of government roadwork faces a full FIR.
BY PC Bureau
NEW DELHI, September 28: The Delhi Police response to Sunday’s road-inspection confrontation has produced a striking legal contrast: PWD Minister Parvesh Verma, seen in a widely circulated video allegedly slapping a man at the site, faces a non-cognisable report, while AAP MLA Jarnail Singh faces an FIR over allegations that he obstructed government officials.
The difference has raised questions over how the two complaints arising from the same confrontation have been treated and whether the police response adequately reflects the seriousness of the allegations on both sides.
The NCR against Verma was registered under Section 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, relating to voluntarily causing hurt, on the complaint of Sahib Singh, the man who alleges that the minister slapped him. Under the provision invoked by police, the offence is non-cognisable, meaning police cannot investigate it without an order from a magistrate.
The FIR against Jarnail Singh, meanwhile, followed complaints from PWD officials alleging obstruction, intimidation and interference with government work. Police have also received other complaints connected with the confrontation.
That creates the central question in the case: why has an allegation of physical assault involving a serving minister resulted only in an NCR requiring a magistrate’s permission for investigation, while the elected representative who was challenging the quality of government roadwork faces an FIR?
The legal explanation may be that the police have invoked different offences with different classifications. But that does not necessarily answer the broader question of whether the complaints have been handled with equal urgency.
The confrontation took place during Verma’s inspection of road work in west Delhi. Jarnail Singh was questioning the quality of the newly laid surface and, according to reports, pulled out portions of it by hand to demonstrate what he claimed was poor construction. A video subsequently circulated showing Verma confronting Sahib Singh, who was filming the proceedings, before appearing to slap him.
SHAMEFUL ARROGANCE OF POWER! 🚨
A common taxpayer questions Delhi Minister Parvesh Verma about poor road quality only to get Slapped in broad daylight.
Is this what Delhi voted for? To have their dignity stripped away!
Pay their salary, pay tax to get Slapped 😡 pic.twitter.com/ASASCxsKJY
— D (@Deb_livnletliv) September 27, 2026
READ: Slap Row: NCR Against Delhi Minister Verma, FIR Against AAP MLA Jarnail Singh
Verma has disputed the interpretation of the incident. He said an AAP worker had abused his family and that he reacted in the heat of the moment. He has also accused Jarnail Singh of obstructing officials and alleged that the MLA sought a “commission” from PWD workers. Those allegations remain allegations and have not been established by the police.
Jarnail Singh, for his part, has rejected the allegations and maintained that he was exposing what he considered poor-quality road construction. PWD officials have accused him and his associates of obstructing work and damaging the newly laid road.
The question, therefore, is not simply whether the two cases involve different offences. It is whether Delhi Police can convincingly explain why the complaint against the minister has received the more limited procedural treatment while the complaint against the opposition MLA has resulted in an FIR.
