Journalist Ajit Anjum booked for video about Bihar voter roll revision
A first information report was filed against Anjum under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the 1951 Representation of Peoples Act after he visited a polling booth in Bihar's Ballia on Saturday, The Indian Express reported.
In a video posted on his YouTube channel, Anjum had claimed that he had found irregularities in the electoral process, with several enumeration forms at the booth not having photos of the applicants and others that had been partially filled or not having signatures.
Anjum's YouTube channel has 75 lakh subscribers.
He was booked under sections pertaining to criminal trespass, disobeying a lawful order, preventing a public servant from doing their duty and hurting religious sentiments, The Indian Express reported.
The FIR against Anjum was filed based on a complaint by a booth-level officer named Mohammed Ansrarul Haque.
The Begusarai district administration alleged that Anjum, his associates and cameraperson had made unauthorised videos of the voter roll revision process.
'In the video, the YouTuber identified people of a particular caste by forcefully checking sensitive documents of a particular polling station and false propaganda was spread about the possibility of incomplete documents and fake signatures,' the administration alleged.
Anjum on Monday said that a Muslim block-level officer was 'being used as a scapegoat ' against him.
'Instead of addressing the questions raised in the video, the administration is resorting to intimidation tactics,' Anjum said on social media. 'All I'm saying is that I'm right here in Begusarai. If needed, I will fight up to the Supreme Court. I won't be scared.'
The Digipub News India Foundation, an association of independent digital news organisations and journalists, said that the FIR against Anjum was a direct assault on independent journalism.
The 'vague allegations' against Anjum were neither credible nor reason enough for an FIR, the news association said in a statement.
'Instead of addressing those legitimate questions, the Election Commission, through this FIR, has attempted to intimidate not just him but all independent journalists who dare to report from the ground,' it added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
5 minutes ago
- Mint
Amid Trump administration's crackdown on immigrants, US deports five 'barbaric' criminals to small African nation
The Donald Trump administration deported five men convicted of violent crimes to Eswatini, a tiny African kingdom, on Tuesday. The deportees – from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba, and Yemen – included murderers and child rapists whose home countries refused to take them back. Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin called them 'uniquely barbaric' criminals now 'off American soil'. The flight followed a recent Supreme Court ruling allowing deportations to countries where migrants have no ties. New immigration rules let officials deport people with just 6 hours' notice in emergencies. Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) – a nation smaller than New Jersey with 1.2 million people – hasn't explained its agreement to accept the deportees. Ruled by King Mswati III since 1986, it's Africa's last absolute monarchy and bans political parties. Pro-democracy groups protested the secrecy, with SWALIMO spokesperson Ingiphile Dlamini stating: 'There's been no official communication about this deal' . Critics worry the poor country can't safely manage violent criminals and note its history of human rights abuses, including torturing detainees. This marks the second African deportation this month; eight men were sent to war-torn South Sudan earlier. The Trump administration is actively seeking similar deals with Rwanda, Angola, and other African nations. While West African leaders discussed accepting deportees during recent White House visits, Nigeria publicly refused, calling it unacceptable. The U.S. has also sent hundreds of Venezuelans to Central American prisons, but Africa is now a focus for 'third-country' removals. Analysts suggest poor nations may agree in exchange for U.S. aid or trade benefits. UN experts and lawyers argue the policy violates international law by sending people to countries where they risk torture. Justice Sonia Sotomayor previously criticized similar deportations, warning migrants could face torture or death. Under the new rules, U.S. officials aren't required to ask if deportees fear persecution in the third country. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended the practice, claiming partner nations will 'take care of them'. However, South Sudan still hasn't revealed the whereabouts of the eight men it received.
Indian Express
7 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Cobra around his neck, part-time snake rescuer's hasty mistake costs him his life
Deepak Mahavar spent years rescuing snakes from homes, farms, and schools across Madhya Pradesh's Guna district. On Monday, after rescuing a venomous Indian cobra, Mahavar made the dangerous decision to drape the snake around his neck while he was on his bike. The cobra bit him, and despite receiving medical treatment, Mahavar died within hours, officials said. Before his death, the 35-year-old, a part-time worker at JP College and a self-taught snake rescuer, had posed for a video, standing still with the cobra loosely looped around his shoulders. According to eyewitnesses and hospital staff, Mahavar had gone to Barbatpura village to respond to a rescue call. He successfully captured the cobra and placed it in a glass container. But before he could release the snake in a safe area, as is standard practice, he received a call from his son's school. His 13-year-old son had been dismissed early. In haste, Mahavar took the snake out of the container and placed it around his neck, presumably to keep it secure as he rushed to school on his motorbike. Additional Superintendent of Police Man Singh Thakur told The Indian Express, 'The snake rescuer put the snake around his neck and travelled on a bike when he heard his son had been dismissed early from school. The snake bit him on his hand.' Despite the bite, Mahavar remained conscious long enough to call a friend and seek help. He was admitted to Raghogarh hospital and later referred to Guna District Hospital, where he sought treatment. He was discharged in the evening after showing signs of recovery, but by midnight, his condition had worsened. 'He was brought back to the hospital in critical condition but died before further treatment could begin,' Thakur said. He leaves behind two sons, aged 14 and 12. Their mother had passed away earlier. Snakebites are a public health issue in Madhya Pradesh, especially during the monsoon months of June to September. Paddy fields, open drains, and waterlogged areas become breeding grounds for snakes, particularly cobras, kraits, and vipers, wildlife officials said. According to officials, Madhya Pradesh records hundreds of snakebite cases every year, many of them fatal due to delays in reaching proper medical facilities or incorrect first aid. The state also has all the big four venomous snakes like the common krait, the Indian cobra, the Russell's viper, and the saw-scaled viper. A 2024 study conducted on MP State government compensation for snake deaths found that more than 5,700 people died of snakebite between 2020 and 2022, and warned that the actual number was likely higher. Snake rescuing in rural India is often carried out by volunteers or self-taught individuals like Mahavar, who learn through experience and local knowledge rather than formal training. While their services are invaluable, especially in regions with inadequate animal control infrastructure, many lack protective equipment such as snake hooks, gloves, or secure carrying bags. Guna Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) Akshay Rathore told The Indian Express, 'The deceased was not part of the local wildlife team. We have trained our own team in snake rescues. But we are unable to cover all areas, and these private snake rescuers fill the gap. He did not handle the snake properly and did not follow proper protocols. You are not supposed to touch the snake; you should handle them with proper equipment.'
Indian Express
7 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Why the SC has made secretly recorded conversations between spouses in court
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that secretly recorded conversations between spouses are admissible evidence in matrimonial disputes, including divorce proceedings. It set aside a 2021 Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which had barred a husband, who sought a divorce, from using secretly recorded phone conversations with his wife as evidence in court. The apex court's ruling changes the contours of spousal or marital privilege in Indian law, which protects private conversations between a husband and a wife during their marriage, and even after the marriage has ended. Spousal privilege means that a person cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse in a criminal case. It is rooted in the idea that a degree of protection has to be provided to private conversations between a husband and a wife during their marriage. In India, Section 122 of the Evidence Act codifies this. It states: 'No person who is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative-in-interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other.' Spousal communication is allowed as evidence, according to the law, when the other spouse consents or when one spouse has narrated the events to a third party who testifies in a court. Otherwise, even if a spouse accidentally spills the beans, it is struck off the record as inadmissible evidence that the court cannot rely upon. Spousal privilege does not apply directly in divorce cases where one spouse makes allegations against the other spouse and testifies in a court of law. These allegations are supplemented by evidence such as letters, photographs or testimonies of other people. However, with technological advances, text messages, video and voice recordings, emails are often presented as evidence. Many High Courts have refrained from accepting secret recordings as evidence due to two main reasons: The SC's ruling relied on its 1973 judgment in a case, which pertained to a telephonic conversation recorded by the police to prove a bribery charge against a doctor. At the time, the apex court overlooked how the evidence was obtained, given that the case involved corruption by a public servant and the phone tap was by the state. The SC has now effectively extended this reasoning to matrimonial cases. The court has said that if evidence is relevant, independently verifiable, and falls within statutory exceptions, it can be admitted even if collected in secret. It has also been said that secret recordings are a violation of fundamental rights, but the right to privacy has to be balanced with the right to a fair trial. The SC has interpreted Section 122 to mean that while an individual cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse, it is not impermissible to allow evidence to that effect, especially in matrimonial disputes. The ruling says a telephone that secretly records conversations is 'no different from an eavesdropper.' Simply put, the court here is equating digital evidence to a third party who is a witness to a privileged conversation and is testifying. The SC recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right in 2017. The current ruling is an example of how the court operationalises this right to privacy. The court, in its interpretation of Section 122, said that the provision was drafted into 'sanctity of the marriage' and not to protect privacy within marriage. This is perhaps true for a law of the Victorian era — the Evidence Act came into force in 1872. But privacy as a is now a fundamental right, which protects the inner sphere of the individual from interference from both state and non-state actors. Any infringement of the right to privacy has to be backed by a valid law. The SC also disagreed with the argument that making secret recordings admissible in court would lead to surveillance within marriage. It said, 'If the marriage has reached a stage where spouses are actively snooping on each other, that is in itself a symptom of a broken relationship and denotes a lack of trust between them.' There is also a concern that the ruling could affect women's right to a fair trial, as there is a huge gender gap in smartphone ownership and access to technology in India. There is a 39% divide in ownership of smartphones by women compared to men in the country, according to the Mobile Gender Gap Report 2025. When evidence can be collected at the click of a button, the party with easier access to such technology naturally gets the upper hand.
