Lucknow court registers case against ANI Editor Smita Prakash over false ECI news

A Lucknow court has registered a case against ANI Editor Smita Prakash on a complaint alleging that the agency published false news attributed to the Election Commission of India (ECI).

While hearing the complaint filed by former IPS officer Amitabh Thakur, the court said,

"Heard and perused the complaint and written submissions. At this stage, without entering into the merits of territorial jurisdiction or sufficiency of grounds, the complaint is found to be in order procedurally. In view of the provisions of Chapter XV BNSS, the complaint is liable to be registered as a complaint case...Let this case be registered as a Complaint Case. The Complainant is directed to appear on 26.09.2025 for recording of his statement under oath."

Thakur alleged that ANI repeatedly attributed statements to the ECI that were neither released on its official website nor shared on its verified social media platforms. He contended that this amounted to the agency circulating false news in the name of the Commission without any official backing.

The complaint points to multiple instances from August 2025, including ANI’s posts on X and news reports published either prior to or without any official confirmation from the Election Commission.

Thakur referred to ANI’s post dated August 1, 2025, at 3:08 PM, which carried a statement allegedly from the ECI objecting to Rahul Gandhi’s allegations of vote theft.

"...best of the applicant’s knowledge, many news have been relayed by ANI, being run by the OP Ms Smita Prakash, as being that of the ECI, without any official fact or evidence to back it up, completely on its own. Thus, there are many news relayed by ANI, which are neither on the official website of the Commission, nor on their social sites, nor presented through any official Press Conference or Press interaction etc, which have only ANI’s word to back up the given news. Here, ECI seems to be relaying arbitrary and self-assumed, self-professed and false information/news in the name of the Commission."

Thakur further submitted that although he could have approached the police to seek registration of an FIR, there was a strong possibility that the police might be influenced due to various factors. Therefore, he considered it more appropriate to file a direct complaint before the court.

Accordingly, he urged the court to take cognizance of his complaint and initiate necessary proceedings against Prakash for alleged acts of criminal malfeasance.