By signing in or creating an account, you agree with Associated Broadcasting Company's Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
New Delhi: A video allegedly showing a Ghaziabad police officer conducting a so-called “citizenship check” using a mobile phone has gone viral, triggering sharp criticism, ridicule and serious questions about police conduct during verification drives.
In the video circulating widely on social media, Kaushambi police station SHO Ajay Sharma is seen placing a mobile phone on the back of a man and claiming that the “machine” indicates he is Bangladeshi. The clip shows no device other than a mobile phone, raising questions about the legitimacy and intent of the act.
The officer is heard asserting that the phone is capable of determining a person’s nationality, prompting disbelief and outrage among viewers once the video went viral.
According to sources, the video is from December 24, when police personnel, along with the Rapid Action Force (RAF), were conducting a flag march in the Kaushambi police station area.
During the operation, police visited slum settlements and asked residents to produce identity documents. Those unable to show valid IDs were questioned about their ancestral origins. Some residents reportedly told the police they were from districts in Bihar.
The inspector allegedly responded by claiming the police possessed a device that could “reveal the truth” when placed on the body, a statement that later became central to the viral controversy.
As the clip spread online, social media users reacted with sarcasm, memes and sharp criticism. Many questioned whether such actions amounted to intimidation, profiling or misuse of authority, while others mocked the supposed “high-tech” citizenship verification method.
Several users expressed concern over the implications of such conduct during police verification drives, particularly involving vulnerable communities.
Despite the growing backlash, the Ghaziabad police and district administration have not issued any official statement clarifying the incident or the intent behind the officer’s actions.
The episode has reignited debate over police accountability, verification procedures, and the line between interrogation tactics and public misconduct.