Lucknow Court Registers Complaint Case Against ANI Editor Smita Prakash Over Alleged Fake ECI Reports

The matter came up before the Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow. After hearing preliminary submissions, the magistrate on September 11, 2025, directed that the complaint be formally registered, holding that it was procedurally in order. Court, however, stopped short of deciding on the question of territorial jurisdiction at this stage, stating that those issues would be addressed later. Thakur has now been directed to appear on September 26 for recording of his statement under oath.

The controversy revolves around Rahul Gandhi’s remarks on August 1, 2025, accusing the ECI of enabling “vote theft,” which triggered a fierce political storm. According to Thakur’s complaint, while the ECI officially responded to Gandhi’s remarks only through its X account later in the evening, ANI had already circulated reports earlier in the day, quoting the ECI as dismissing the allegations as “baseless” and “irresponsible". Thakur alleged that these statements attributed to the ECI by ANI were not available on any official platform of the Commission, including its website or verified social media handles.

In his complaint, Thakur documented several instances where ANI allegedly pre-empted or fabricated official communications. For instance, on August 2, ANI posted about an ECI letter to Gandhi minutes before the Commission itself uploaded the letter on its official handle. On August 7, ANI reportedly publicized a letter from the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, before it was released by the authority. Similarly, ANI was accused of publishing a press release titled “Pure Elector Rolls strengthen democracy” twelve minutes before it appeared on the Commission’s website on August 16.

Thakur contended that such conduct amounted not only to “cheating” under Sections 318(2) and 318(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) but also raised suspicions of “illegal infiltration” into the Commission’s system. He claimed ANI may have accessed insider information and misrepresented it as official statements, misleading the public and undermining institutional credibility.

While the court initially raised concerns about territorial jurisdiction, since ANI is headquartered in Noida and the broadcasts originated outside Lucknow, Thakur argued that the nature of the offence made it a “continuing one". He submitted that the broadcasts and online posts were viewed across India, including Lucknow, and therefore the offence occurred wherever the content was consumed. To support his case, he cited several defamation cases against Rahul Gandhi that were entertained in courts far from the place of the original remarks, including in Lucknow, Sultanpur, and Pune.

Accepting the procedural validity of the complaint, the court has now taken the first step by registering the matter as a complaint case. “Without entering into the merits of territorial jurisdiction or sufficiency of grounds, the complaint is found to be in order procedurally,” the magistrate recorded in the order.

The case now moves into the evidence stage, where Thakur will record his statement, after which the court will decide whether to summon Smita Prakash as an accused.

Case Title: Amitabh Thakur vs Smita Prakash

Order Date: September 11, 2025

Judge: Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow