In May 2021 – two months before the Sulli Deals app was created on Github – a woman Congress leader had submitted a complaint against a Twitter handle that “auctioned” her on the social media website.
The complaint, submitted on 13 May, was turned into an FIR on 16 May, and it stated, “on 13 May 2021, a Twitter handle started an auction on me on Twitter… It said, ‘I invoke legendary @sullideals101 to auction this sulli… Minimum bid 1USD. Bidding starts now.”
On Friday, 7 January 2022, the Delhi Police stated that the Twitter handle mentioned in the FIR filed at the behest of Congress leader’s complaint, was created by Niraj Bishnoi – the “main conspirator behind the Bulli Bai app.”
Bishnoi was arrested from his house in Assam’s Jorhat on 5 January 2022. The Delhi Police is now analysing his role in the Sulli Deals app case.
The Congress leader told The Quint, “This had happened two months before Sulli Deals app was created in 2021, and eight months before Bulli Bai app was created on the same platform in 2022. Had the police acted swiftly in May 2021 itself, maybe these apps would not have been created. Now, the Delhi Police has said that the Twitter handle mentioned in the FIR is one of the many handles that Niraj Bishnoi created.”
Both Sulli Deals and Bulli Bai apps on Github misused photos of several Muslim women. The woman Congress leader’s photos were uploaded on both the apps. The Sulli Deals app uploaded photos of the Muslim women with the text “deal of the day.”
Two separate FIRs were filed in the matter in July by Delhi and Noida Police. In the Bulli Bai app case, four arrests have been made so far.
The woman told The Quint, “I am disappointed, triggered, humiliated, hurt and extremely worried. The rot runs deep, it’s worrying that an entire generation is indoctrinated and has hatred against oppressed communities.”
It is to be noted that the FIR registered by the Delhi Police on 16 May 2021 was against unknown persons under section 354d (stalking) of the IPC. A day after the FIR was filed, the complainant wrote to the investigating officer regarding the IPS sections that ideally ought to be invoked in the FIR.
She wrote, “I believe that the section under which the FIR has been filed by you does not appropriately apply to the facts of the case.” She mentioned the IPC sections “more suited for the case” – IPC section 503 (criminal intimidation), 509 (intending to insult modesty of woman), 354A (sexual harassment), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings), and 67A (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the IT Act.
The woman said that she hasn’t yet fully comprehended all that has happened in the last few months, and has also “reduced her social media activity.”
She said, “I will manage myself but when my family sees this, they get upset and worried. This also impacts your work. It’s so humiliating to wake up to see yourself being auctioned on such apps. I am angry, helpless, scared, and worried.”
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)