Chaudhary made the disclosure during a media interaction in Hansi on Wednesday, September 9, after being appointed national president of the Dharm Sena Yuva Morcha. He said he went to the protest with one companion and deliberately kept a low profile because publicity around the presence of an MP’s son could have overshadowed the issues being raised.
“I knew that if my picture surfaced, the focus would shift to the fact that an MP’s son was sitting at the protest,” Chaudhary said, explaining why he covered his face. His account of attending the demonstration has not been independently established beyond his statement.
He said that arriving with a larger group and cameras would have turned his presence into the story, rather than the demonstration itself. Chaudhary maintained that his purpose was to observe the protest and stand with young people on their concerns.
Dharambir Singh represents the Bhiwani-Mahendragarh constituency in the Lok Sabha for the Bharatiya Janata Party. Chaudhary’s disclosure is politically notable because leaders from the BJP and opposition parties have sharply disputed the character and composition of the youth-led mobilisation at Jantar Mantar.
The protest movement was driven largely by students and young people angered by examination irregularities, particularly the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, and broader demands for changes in the education system. A major mobilisation on July 20 drew thousands towards Parliament after protesters assembled around Jantar Mantar, leading to clashes with police, detentions and the use of tear gas and batons.
Chaudhary said young people should speak out whenever they believed something was wrong or contrary to the national interest. Referring to the NEET controversy, he said the government had taken cognisance of the matter and acted against those responsible. His remarks appeared to draw a distinction between supporting students’ grievances and opposing attempts to use the protest for partisan purposes.
Responding to comments by Haryana BJP president Archana Gupta about the presence of people linked to other political parties at the Jantar Mantar demonstration, Chaudhary said “genuine students” had been among those taking part. At the same time, he alleged that some participants might have joined with the intention of maligning the government or gaining political advantage.
That assertion remains Chaudhary’s assessment. The Jantar Mantar mobilisation brought together student groups, activists, professionals and political figures, and its organisers presented it as a campaign centred on examination accountability and education reform. Opposition leaders also appeared at demonstrations connected with the movement, while the BJP and its supporters questioned the role of political actors in the protests.
The July agitation became a national political issue after protesters attempted a march towards Parliament on the opening day of the Monsoon Session. Police had said permission had not been granted for a procession beyond the designated protest area, while demonstrators accused security personnel of excessive force. Several people were injured during the confrontation.
Questions over police handling, surveillance and identification of participants later reached the courts. Delhi Police told the Delhi High Court that measures at the protest site were intended to maintain law and order and denied that they amounted to unlawful snooping. The High Court separately declined to direct an investigation by the National Investigation Agency into allegations surrounding the protest, saying the decision on activating the agency rested with the Union government under the law.
The political debate continued after claims were made about the identities and backgrounds of people seen at the protest. Some allegations circulated publicly were challenged or contradicted by official information, adding to demands that claims about participants be verified before being treated as fact.
