Hindu deities and women targeted with derogatory remarks by social media influencer in Uttarakhand
Haldwani, Uttarakhand, India 
7 January, 2026
Case Summary
In Haldwani, Uttarakhand, Hindu deities were denigrated and Hindu women were abused by a social media influencer and YouTuber named Jyoti Adhikari. This incident occurred when the accused, Jyoti Adhikari, attended a protest related to the Ankita Bhandari case, a rape case that happened in 2022 in Rishikesh. During the protest, Jyoti openly brandished a sickle, abused Hindu Pahadi women by calling them 'dancers' in a derogatory way, and made objectionable remarks against Hindu folk deities. She also questioned the existence of the revered deities. Following this, a complaint was filed against the accused by local resident Juhi Chuphal. In her complaint, Juhi Chuphal stated that she is a resident of Uttarakhand and has deep respect for the state's local culture, gods, and goddesses. She explained that through various videos circulating on social media, she learned that YouTuber Jyoti Adhikari, wife of Gopal Singh Adhikari, a resident of Haripur Lalmani, Kishanpur Ghuddaura, Haldwani, used highly offensive language against local Hindu deities and Hindu women while brandishing a sickle in a public place. Based on Juhi Chuphal's complaint, the police registered a case, arrested the accused and began questioning her. Following the interrogation, she was taken into custody. She was produced in court late on 8 January 2026, where she was remanded to 14-day judicial custody.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Hate Speech against Hindus. The subcategory selected is- Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith. Anti-Hindu slurs and the deliberate mocking of the Hindu faith owing to religious animosity involve the usage of derogatory terms, stereotypes, or offensive references to religious practices, symbols, or figures. One of the common anti-Hindu slurs used against Hindus is “cow-worshipper” and “cow piss drinker”. The intention of using this term is to demean and mock Hindus as a group and their religious beliefs since Hindus consider the cow holy. Additionally, some symbols and the slurs attached to them have a historical context that exacerbates the insult, hate, stereotyping, dehumanisation and oppression against Hindus. Cow worship has been used for centuries to denigrate Hindus, insult their faith and oppress Hindus specifically as a religious group. There has been overwhelming documentation about how cow slaughter has been used to persecute Hindus with cow meat being thrown in temples and places of worship. There has also been overwhelming documentation where cow meat (beef) has been force-fed to Hindus to either forcefully convert them to Islam or denigrate their faith. Apart from cow worship, the Swastika – which holds deep religious significance for the Hindus – has also been misinterpreted and distorted to use as a slur against Hindus. Similarly, the worship of the Shivling has been used by supremacist ideologies and religions to denigrate Hindus owing to religious animosity. Such slurs and denigration stem out of inherent animosity and hate towards Hindus and their faith, therefore, it is categorised as hate speech targeted at Hindus specifically owing to their religious identity. This case represents a clear instance of religiously motivated hate speech, as the accused, Jyoti Adhikari, denigrated Hindu folk deities and abused Hindu women with derogatory slurs during protests over the Ankita Bhandari rape case. Rather than focusing on justice for the victim, she launched an abusive rant against local Hindu gods and Pahadi Hindu women, brandishing a sickle while questioning deities' existence and labelling women as dancers in a contemptuous manner. This deliberate pivot from protest to targeted religious vilification exposed her deep-seated religious and ideological animosity towards Hinduism and the Hindu community, transforming a public platform into a vehicle for sectarian provocation. Local Hindu deities hold profound reverence among Hindus, viewed as sacred guardians of cultural and spiritual heritage integral to Uttarakhand's Pahadi identity. The way the accused denigrated these local Hindu deities and questioned their existence constituted no mere query or random comment, but a provocative statement crafted deliberately to hurt and provoke the sentiments of the Hindu community. Any attempt to denigrate or abuse Hindu deities strikes at the core of the Hindu community's devotion, inflicting deliberate emotional harm on believers who cherish these figures as embodiments of divine protection and tradition. The way Jyoti Adhikari denigrated Pahadi Hindu women by calling them dancers in a derogatory and abusive manner showcased her targeted assault precisely due to their religious identity as Hindus, rather than any personal grievance or unrelated motive. She singled out these women not for individual actions but for embodying the Hindu Pahadi culture she simultaneously mocked through denigrating Hindu deities. This selective vilification during a public protest laid bare her intent to shame and dehumanise Hindu women as representatives of their faith, stripping away any pretence of broader social critique and exposing pure religious animosity at its core. All this together: denigrating Hindu deities and abusing Hindu women, revealed the perpetrator's profound animosity towards Hinduism and the Hindu community, with women as the most vulnerable section subjected to abuse precisely due to their religious identity. This calculated targeting constitutes a clear case of a religiously motivated hate crime and anti-Hindu slurring. Therefore, this case is being added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records the dates of incidents based on when the crime occurs rather than when it is reported by the media. However, in this current case, media reports did not state the exact date when the crime occurred. They only stated the date when the court sent the accused to judicial custody, that is, 8 January 2026. Hence, this date was selected as the indicative date of the incident for documentation purposes only.
Case Status
Case sub-judice
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
female
Sources 
