Revenge or ego? Who really leaked the scuffle video of the ex-SDPO, Gandhinagar and the KAS officer?
Unanswered Questions Over Viral Scuffle Video, Suspension, and Delay in Enquiry Continue to Trouble Administration
||Black and White Digital News ||
||Parvinder Singh January 30,2026||
Jammu: The viral circulation of a roadside scuffle video involving the former SDPO Gandhinagar and a KAS officer continues to raise serious legal and administrative concerns, particularly regarding the source of the video leak, the intent behind its selective dissemination, and the prolonged delay in concluding departmental and legal proceedings.
The incident reportedly originated from a minor road accident involving the official vehicle of the KAS officer and a matador driver, which led to a heated exchange and temporary traffic congestion. Police personnel deployed at the spot intervened and attempted to pacify both sides. However, the situation later escalated into an alleged physical confrontation, portions of which were captured on video and subsequently surfaced on social media, drawing widespread public and media attention.
Although the scuffle occurred at a public location, the video in circulation is believed to have been sourced from CCTV footage, bringing the manner of its retrieval and dissemination under scrutiny. Questions remain unanswered regarding who accessed the CCTV recording, under what authority it was recorded or copied, and who facilitated its circulation to media houses. The absence of clarity has fuelled speculation over whether the leak was driven by personal animosity, ego clashes, or vested interests, allegedly involving the civil officer, rather than any bona fide public interest.
According to official sources, soon after the incident both officers met in the presence of senior police and civil administration officials, where the matter was reportedly close to an amicable resolution. However, the issue resurfaced with greater intensity after the video went viral on social media platforms. Certain sections allegedly attempted to impart a communal or political narrative to the incident, a move that drew criticism for being contrary to public sentiment, administrative discipline, and professional ethics.
Following the widespread circulation of the video, the SDPO Gandhinagar was first attached and later placed under suspension. This sequence of administrative action has prompted concern among civil society members and sections of the media regarding adherence to due process and proportionality, particularly in light of the absence of a clearly defined time frame for completion of the departmental enquiry. Sources further indicate that the prolonged nature of the dispute may have been exacerbated by negative or non-neutral roles allegedly played by some officials behind the scenes, resulting in a continuing deadlock between the two officers.
The matter has also highlighted several unresolved legal and procedural issues. These include the status of the application seeking registration of an FIR by SGCT Ajay Kumar, who was present on duty at the time of the incident, and the progress made in FIR No. 245 dated 10 November 2025. Despite the passage of time, there has been no visible movement or official communication regarding the outcome of these proceedings or the departmental enquiry.
Public scrutiny intensified further following the recent sighting of a vehicle parked in Jammu displaying the concerned officer’s name along with the notation “under suspension.” Subsequent inquiries revealed that, as of date, no final enquiry report has been formally acted upon or forwarded for conclusive administrative action, adding to concerns over prolonged suspension without closure.
Civil society members have expressed deep concern that the careers, reputations, and morale of two officers working at the ground level have been placed in jeopardy due to delayed decision-making and perceived lack of effective supervision. Many fear that prolonged uncertainty not only impacts the individuals involved but also sends a negative message to the police force and the broader administrative system.
Senior officials in the police and civil administration are, however, said to be keen on resolving the matter in accordance with law and established procedures. Emphasis has been laid on ensuring fairness, institutional credibility, and the ability of officers to continue serving the public interest, subject to the outcome of enquiries.
As discussions continue within administrative and civil circles, the principle that “justice delayed is justice denied” remains central to the debate. Civil society representatives and concerned journalists have sought clarity from senior authorities, urging a transparent, impartial, and time-bound conclusion to the enquiry and related legal processes.
For now, the focus remains firmly on two expectations: accountability for the prolonged delay and a definitive, lawful conclusion to the proceedings arising out of the viral scuffle incident.
