A Thar owner from Haryana has sent a legal notice to the state's Director General of Police (DGP) demanding a formal apology for what he describes as a "mocking and insulting" remark about Thar owners having a "criminal mindset." The controversy has sparked discussions about stereotyping vehicle owners and appropriate public statements by law enforcement officials.
The Controversial Remark and Legal Response
The dispute centers around comments made by Haryana's top police officer that allegedly characterized Thar owners as having criminal tendencies. According to the legal notice served on November 26, 2025, the DGP's statement had "no factual basis or justification" and was delivered in a manner that mocked all Thar owners, including the complainant.
The notice emphasizes that such comments from a senior police official are not only inappropriate but also potentially damaging to the reputation of law-abiding citizens who own the popular SUV. The Thar owner argues that the remark creates unnecessary stereotypes and unfairly targets a specific group of vehicle owners based solely on their choice of automobile.
Growing Backlash and Public Reaction
The legal action has drawn attention to the broader issue of public figures making generalized statements about specific communities or groups. Vehicle enthusiasts and civil rights advocates have begun weighing in on the matter, with many expressing concern about the implications of such characterization by a senior law enforcement officer.
The notice specifically highlights the mocking and insulting tone used in the DGP's comment, suggesting it reflects poorly on the professionalism expected from someone in his position. The complainant maintains that the statement was made without any evidence or factual support, making it particularly objectionable.
What Happens Next?
As the legal notice circulates, all eyes are on the Haryana Police Department to see how they will respond to the demand for an apology. The situation raises important questions about the boundaries of public commentary by government officials and the accountability mechanisms available to citizens when they feel unfairly targeted.
The Thar owner's firm stance indicates that vehicle enthusiasts are no longer willing to accept stereotypical comments without challenge. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how similar situations are handled in the future, particularly when involving high-ranking officials and specific consumer groups.
Legal experts suggest that the demand for an apology represents more than just personal grievance—it touches upon broader issues of dignity, respect, and the responsible use of public platform by those in authority positions.
