New Delhi, January 7, 2026 – The Delhi Assembly witnessed a heated political confrontation on Wednesday, as members of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) engaged in a sharp exchange of words over remarks made regarding revered historical figures. The dispute, which intensified during the winter session of the Assembly, centered on statements attributed to AAP leaders about Guru Tegh Bahadur, as well as apparent misstatements made by Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta regarding freedom fighter Bhagat Singh.

The confrontation unfolded during discussions on the Delhi government’s programme commemorating the 350th martyrdom anniversary of Guru Tegh Bahadur, held last November. BJP legislators raised the issue forcefully, alleging that remarks made by Atishi, AAP’s Leader of the Opposition in the Delhi Assembly, were insensitive and hurt religious sentiments. The party demanded a public apology from the AAP leadership, asserting that such statements were deeply disrespectful to the Sikh community and undermined the solemnity of the historic commemoration.

BJP MLAs staged a vocal protest inside the House, holding placards and pressing for a direct response from the opposition. According to party members, the remarks made during Assembly debates not only undermined the reverence due to Guru Tegh Bahadur but also reflected an indifference to the sentiments of a large section of Delhi’s population. The BJP members contended that Atishi’s comments were inappropriate for a leader of her stature and demanded that the AAP issue a formal statement of regret to mitigate the offense caused.

In parallel, AAP leaders voiced their criticism of Chief Minister Rekha Gupta after she appeared to make an erroneous reference during a speech in the Assembly. While addressing the history of Delhi and highlighting the city’s revolutionary legacy, Gupta discussed the 1929 bombing of the Central Legislative Assembly carried out by Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt. However, she reportedly referred to the “deaf Congress government” rather than the British colonial administration, prompting accusations from AAP members that she had misrepresented historical facts.

AAP legislators, led by Delhi chief Saurabh Bhardwaj, took to social media to highlight the perceived error. A video clip of the Chief Minister’s speech was circulated widely, with Bhardwaj asserting that Gupta’s remarks had not only misrepresented the historical record but also embarrassed the country by distorting the narrative of India’s freedom struggle. According to him, such lapses, even if unintended, have the potential to confuse the public and undermine the credibility of the government when discussing sensitive historical topics.

The political discord extended beyond historical debates, touching on broader issues of governance and Assembly procedures. AAP MLA Sanjeev Jha alleged that he was prevented from entering the Assembly premises despite being an elected representative. Jha claimed that although he had been suspended from the House, his office remained within the Assembly complex, and he accused BJP members of disrespecting both his position and the memory of Bhagat Singh by denying him access. “I have been suspended from the House, but my office is inside. BJP should apologise for disrespecting Bhagat Singh,” he said, underscoring the heightened emotions surrounding the controversy.

The winter session of the Delhi Legislative Assembly, which began earlier this week and is scheduled to continue until January 8, has seen debates on multiple fronts, ranging from civic administration and public health to education and environmental issues. The dispute over historical remarks, however, quickly became the focal point of political contention, highlighting the increasingly combative dynamic between the ruling party and the opposition.

BJP members also objected to what they described as misleading information propagated by AAP regarding education policies. Specifically, they criticized claims that school teachers had been asked to count stray dogs, labeling such allegations as “false and inflammatory.” The party staged protests within the Assembly chamber, with members holding placards and vocally demanding that AAP convenor Arvind Kejriwal issue a clarification. BJP leaders argued that such misinformation not only undermined public trust in governance but also diverted attention from pressing civic issues, including waste management, traffic regulation, and pollution control.

In response, AAP leaders organised a counter-demonstration outside the Assembly complex, with Atishi leading the charge. The opposition focused on raising awareness about the worsening air pollution crisis in Delhi, demanding urgent action from the state government. By holding a simultaneous protest, AAP sought to balance its criticism of BJP’s stance on historical figures with advocacy on environmental and civic concerns, signalling that the party intends to maintain pressure on multiple fronts during the ongoing winter session.

The controversy over historical narratives came at a time when both parties are acutely aware of the political significance of public sentiment and symbolism. For BJP, defending the legacy of Guru Tegh Bahadur aligns with its emphasis on cultural heritage and religious sensitivity, while for AAP, highlighting misstatements by the Chief Minister serves to position the party as vigilant and accountable in matters of governance and education.

During her speech, Chief Minister Rekha Gupta traced Delhi’s historical and cultural evolution, beginning with references to the Mahabharata and medieval rulers such as Prithviraj Chauhan, before addressing modern history and India’s freedom struggle. It was during this segment that the reference to Bhagat Singh and the Central Legislative Assembly incident was made. While her intent appeared to be to honour revolutionary figures, the slip in terminology was seized upon by AAP legislators as evidence of historical inaccuracy and insensitivity.

The debate highlights the intersection of politics, history, and governance in Delhi’s Assembly, where symbolic gestures and statements are closely scrutinized by both parties. BJP’s insistence on a public apology reflects the political stakes associated with historical memory and religious sentiment, particularly in a diverse and politically active urban constituency. Conversely, AAP’s counter-criticism underscores the party’s focus on holding the ruling government accountable for factual accuracy and transparency, even on matters of historical narrative.

Analysts suggest that the escalation of such disputes is indicative of the larger political climate in Delhi, where both parties are vying to consolidate their support bases ahead of potential elections. The tension over historical statements, symbolic protests, and procedural grievances represents a broader struggle for political legitimacy and public approval, reflecting how historical memory and civic administration intersect in the contemporary political arena.

As the winter session moves toward its conclusion on January 8, legislators from both sides continue to prepare for further confrontations, whether on historical issues, civic policies, or governance lapses. Observers note that the proceedings in the Delhi Assembly underscore the intense polarization and highly charged atmosphere that characterizes state-level politics in the national capital, where even seemingly minor errors or remarks can escalate into full-scale political disputes.

In summary, the recent events in the Delhi Assembly demonstrate a complex blend of historical reverence, political rivalry, and procedural debate. BJP’s demand for an apology from Atishi over remarks on Guru Tegh Bahadur, coupled with AAP’s criticism of Chief Minister Rekha Gupta regarding Bhagat Singh, has created a vivid tableau of political contention. Both parties continue to leverage symbolic and procedural mechanisms—protests inside and outside the Assembly, social media campaigns, and public statements—to reinforce their respective narratives and political positioning. The controversy serves as a reminder of the intricate interplay between historical memory, political strategy, and legislative processes in India’s capital city.