Never made any derogatory remark against Sikh Gurus: Atishi

Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the Delhi Assembly, Atishi, on Monday denied allegations that she made derogatory remarks against Sikh Gurus during House proceedings on January 6, 2026, and requested the complete, unedited video recording of the official proceedings in her reply to a notice issued by the Privileges Committee.

During the recently concluded Winter Session of the Delhi Assembly, BJP legislators accused Atishi of disrespecting Guru Tegh Bahadur and demanded an apology.

Earlier this month, Assembly Speaker Vijender Gupta said the Privileges Committee had taken up the matter and asked Atishi to submit a written response by January 19.

In her submission, Atishi stated, “I state with utmost clarity and sincerity that I have never made any derogatory remark against Sikh Gurus, either in the House on 6 January 2026, or at any other point of time in my life. I categorically deny the allegation in its entirety.”

She added that reverence for Sikh Gurus is a matter of lived values and personal faith in her family, noting that the Gurus, particularly Guru Tegh Bahadur, represent ideals of sacrifice, courage and protection of human dignity.

Explaining the context of the January 6 proceedings, Atishi said the events unfolded during a political exchange related to governance issues. “What transpired in the House on 6 January 2026 was a heated political exchange on the issue of pollution and governance,” she wrote, adding that AAP MLAs were seeking a discussion on pollution before the Motion of Thanks on the Lieutenant Governor’s address.

She maintained that Sikh Gurus were not mentioned during the exchange. “At no point were Sikh Gurus referred to, invoked or alluded to in any manner whatsoever,” Atishi wrote.

Atishi also said she had not received any communication from the Speaker asking her to clarify her position in the House. “I am in receipt of no communication or request from the Hon’ble Speaker to attend the sitting and clarify the true position,” she added.

Questioning the contents of the notice, Atishi noted that it did not specify the remarks attributed to her, referring instead to “pandemonium in the House” and “disturbance of proceedings” without detailing what was allegedly said or the context in which the remarks were made.

“In the absence of such particulars, I am placed in the untenable position of being asked to respond to an undefined allegation,” she wrote.

To enable a proper response, Atishi requested the Privileges Committee to provide copies of the complaint against her, the complete unedited video recording of the proceedings with certification under evidence law, and any written communication from the Speaker asking her to clarify her position.

“Upon receipt of the above materials, I shall be in a position to offer any further clarification that the Committee may require,” the letter concluded.