A district court in Uttar Pradesh has registered a complaint filed by former IPS officer Amitabh Thakur against ANI’s editor, Smita Prakash, alleging that the news agency published false reports attributed to the Election Commission of India (ECI).
On September 11, 2025, the Judicial Magistrate-III in Lucknow directed that Thakur’s petition be treated as a complaint case. The court noted that at this stage, “without entering into the merits of territorial jurisdiction or sufficiency of grounds, the complaint is found to be in order procedurally.” Thakur is scheduled to appear before the court on September 26 for the recording of his statement under oath.
The directive followed weeks of contention over ANI’s coverage of statements allegedly attributed to the ECI, particularly in the politically charged aftermath of opposition leader Rahul Gandhi’s remarks about “vote theft.”
Allegations of Fabricated Statements
Thakur’s plea accuses ANI, under the editorial leadership of Smita Prakash, of repeatedly attributing statements to the Election Commission that were neither posted on the Commission’s official website nor disseminated through verified social media accounts. The complaint cites multiple instances from August 2025, including ANI’s posts on X that carried statements purportedly from the Commission.
One example, dated August 1, reported the ECI’s objection to Gandhi’s remarks. The Commission, however, issued its clarification hours later, describing Gandhi’s statement as “misleading, baseless and threatening.” Thakur argues ANI’s premature report amounted to issuing “false news in the name of the Commission without any official backup of any kind.”
The Legal Foundation
The complaint invokes provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 318(2), which addresses cheating by false representation, and Section 318(3), which penalizes cheating with knowledge likely to cause wrongful loss. Both carry potential imprisonment of up to three or five years, respectively, along with fines.
Thakur also raised concerns about the possibility of “illegal infiltration” of ANI within the ECI’s information system, suggesting that insider information may have been improperly obtained and disseminated. He argued that while an FIR could have been lodged through the police, potential bias or influence made it necessary to approach the court directly.
Broader Questions About Media Credibility
The complaint underscores a deeper concern: the reliability of news agencies at a time when misinformation can spread rapidly through digital platforms. ANI, one of India’s largest wire services, holds a pivotal role in shaping political narratives as its reports are widely republished by media outlets across the country.
While ANI has not formally responded to the court proceedings, the case has sparked debate within journalistic circles about verification standards, editorial responsibility, and the thin line between speed and accuracy in an era dominated by instant news cycles.
The court’s eventual findings, legal observers say, could have lasting implications for how accountability in political reporting is defined—particularly when the reputations of constitutional bodies like the Election Commission are involved.
