Defamation or Deterrence? The ₹2.5 Crore Case Against Nitesh Rajput

On a September morning in 2025, YouTuber and educator Nitesh Rajput uploaded a video titled "Reality of SSC Exam" to his channel. Armed with Right to Information replies and publicly available government documents, he questioned the transparency of India's Staff Selection Commission examination process, specifically scrutinising tender allocations to private vendors conducting these high-stakes exams that determine the futures of millions of aspirants. The video, which rapidly crossed three million views, resonated deeply with government job aspirants who had long complained about technical glitches, exam cancellations, and systemic irregularities. Rajput's analysis highlighted concerns about how Eduquity Technologies Pvt Ltd, a Noida-based firm conducting SSC examinations, allegedly benefited from changes in tender eligibility criteria, and documented repeated technical failures during exams. The response from Eduquity was swift and crushing. A ₹2.5 crore defamation lawsuit was filed in a Delhi court in February 2026, demanding not just monetary compensation but removal of the video and a public apology. This is where the story stops being about one YouTuber and one company. This is where it becomes a referendum on what remains of free speech in India. Let us be absolutely clear about what is happening here. Nitesh Rajput created his video using Right to Information replies and publicly available government documents. He raised concerns echoed by millions of exam candidates who have directly experienced the technical failures and mismanagement he documented. He did not fabricate evidence. He did not spread rumours. He analysed public records and asked uncomfortable questions. And for this, he faces a ₹2.5 crore lawsuit, a sum that would bankrupt most independent journalists and content creators in India. The company claims Rajput's video contains misleading information that damaged its professional reputation and business interests. But here's the critical question that exposes the power asymmetry at play: if Eduquity believes the allegations are false, why not simply publish counter-evidence? Why not release detailed documentation showing transparent tender processes? Why not address the technical failures that candidates have repeatedly reported? Instead, the answer is a massive legal sledgehammer designed to do one thing: silence criticism through financial terror. This is not justice. This is intimidation masquerading as a legal remedy. The Rajput case is not an isolated incident. It is part of a deeply troubling pattern where those who question power, whether government institutions, powerful corporations, or influential individuals, find themselves drowning in legal proceedings, criminal charges, and imprisonment. Perhaps the most egregious case of journalistic persecution in recent memory is that of Siddique Kappan. Arrested on October 5, 2020, while travelling to Hathras to report on the gang-rape and murder of a 19-year-old Dalit woman, Kappan spent over 850 days, more than two years, in jail under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. His crime? Carrying "two pens and a notepad" to cover a story. He was charged with sedition, promoting enmity between groups, outraging religious feelings, and terrorism-related offences under UAPA. Police first accused him of intending to start a caste-based riot. Later, charges under UAPA, including raising funds for terrorism, were added. The Supreme Court finally granted him bail in September 2022, with Justice U.U. Lalit stated that "every person has freedom of expression." But Kappan had already lost over two years of his life, his mother died while he was imprisoned, and he contracted COVID-19 twice in jail with inadequate medical care. Think about that: A journalist with pens and a notepad, going to cover a brutal crime, spent 850 days in jail before trial. And we call ourselves a democracy. Another case that demonstrates the systematic persecution of critical voices is that of Prabir Purkayastha. The 74-year-old founder and editor-in-chief of NewsClick was arrested on October 3, 2023, under UAPA following allegations that his news portal received funds to spread pro-China propaganda. The Delhi Police raided 46 locations, questioned 46 people, including journalists, historians, and satirists, and seized hundreds of electronic devices. The arrest came after a New York Times article alleged NewsClick received funding from an American millionaire with Chinese connections. The FIR included bizarre allegations such as attempts to show Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh as "not parts of India," discrediting the government's COVID-19 response, and "putting up a spirited defence of legal cases" against Chinese telecom companies. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in May 2024 that Purkayastha's arrest by Delhi police was "invalid in the eyes of the law" since proper procedure had not been followed. But he had already spent months in Tihar Jail at age 74. A 74-year-old veteran journalist was jailed on terrorism charges for running a news website that criticised the government. Does this sound like the world's largest democracy? The international community has watched India's descent into press repression with growing alarm. The numbers are damning. In the World Press Freedom Index, India ranked 161st out of 180 countries in 2023, improved slightly to 159th in 2024, and stood at 151st in 2025. While India's ranking improved marginally to 151st in 2025, it remains classified in the "very serious" or "severe" category by Reporters Without Borders. RSF described the current state of Indian media as an "unofficial state of emergency" that has existed since "Narendra Modi came to power in 2014 and engineered a spectacular rapprochement between his party, the BJP, and the big families dominating the media." Let that sink in: India ranks 151st out of 180 countries. We rank below Nepal at 90th, the Maldives at 104th, Sri Lanka at 139th, and Bangladesh at 149th. We are in the company of authoritarian regimes and conflict zones. RSF states bluntly: "With an average of two to three journalists killed due to their work every year, India is one of the world's most dangerous countries for the media." According to the Free Speech Collective, 2025 saw nine journalist murders in India, with 33 attacks on journalists out of 40 total attacks. At least 14 of 19 harassment instances and 12 of 17 threats were recorded against journalists doing their professional work. Online journalists Mukesh Chandrakar and Raghvendra Bajpai were murdered in separate incidents in January and March 2025, likely in retaliation for their reporting on local corruption. These are not statistics. These are human beings, journalists who paid with their lives for doing their jobs. The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act has become the primary weapon for silencing journalists and activists. As journalist advocate Pranvesh Om explains: "The UAPA's stringent provisions make bail extremely difficult. The arrested people often spend years behind bars waiting for trial. In the case of the UAPA, the general rule is jail; bail becomes the exception." The Committee to Protect Journalists documented that six out of seven journalists being charged or investigated in India as of December 2022 were being charged under UAPA. Think about the implications. A law ostensibly designed to combat terrorism is being systematically used against journalists covering stories about caste violence, government corruption, and social issues. Beyond UAPA, we see the weaponisation of civil defamation law. Corporate giants file massive defamation suits of ₹2.5 crore, ₹10 crore, and ₹50 crore against journalists and content creators who lack even a fraction of those resources. India is among the countries where criminal defamation is still part of the legal system and carries a maximum jail term of two years. In February 2026, an Indian court sentenced a journalist to jail in a defamation case filed by the Adani Group, drawing concerns from the Committee to Protect Journalists. The message is clear: criticise the powerful at your own financial and legal peril. The suppression extends to digital infrastructure as well. Around 3,070 instances of internet shutdown and blocking of apps, along with 785 blocking orders issued by the IT Ministry to various online intermediaries, were recorded in January and February 2025 alone. The November 2025 raid on the Kashmir Times' offices in Jammu and the revocation of investigative news portal The Reporter's Collective's non-profit, tax-exempt status further demonstrate the multi-pronged approach to suppressing independent media. Here is the bitter irony that should enrage every Indian citizen. While Nitesh Rajput faces a ₹2.5 crore lawsuit for analysing public documents, Siddique Kappan spent 850 days in jail for carrying a notepad, while Prabir Purkayastha was arrested at 74 for running a news website, actual criminals often face no consequences. Where are the ₹2.5 crore lawsuits against politicians with documented corruption cases? Where are the massive legal actions against business tycoons who default on thousands of crores in bank loans? Where are the prosecutions of those accused in mob lynching cases? Where are the consequences for officials implicated in the very corruption that journalists expose? Where are the UAPA charges against those who incite communal violence? Where are the terrorism charges against those who make hate speeches? Where are the arrests of those who openly call for violence against minorities? The selective application of law reveals the truth. The system is not designed to punish wrongdoing. It is designed to punish those who expose wrongdoing. Since 2014, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government, India has witnessed a systematic decline in press freedom rankings from 140th in 2014 to 151st in 2025, an increasing use of UAPA against journalists, activists, and students, a corporate capture of media with tycoons close to the government acquiring major news outlets, the rise of "Godi Media," a play on Modi's name and the word for "lapdogs," referring to media outlets that mix populism and pro-BJP propaganda, raids on critical news organizations including NewsClick, The Wire, and others, and economic pressure through ED and Income Tax raids on media organizations. Reporters Without Borders notes that journalists who are critical of the government are routinely subjected to online harassment, intimidation, threats and physical attacks, as well as criminal prosecutions and arbitrary arrests. Proponents of Hindutva call for popular revenge against critics branded as "traitors" and "anti-national." Coordinated campaigns of hatred and calls for murder are conducted on social media, campaigns especially violent when they target women journalists. Is this the India we envisioned? Where does asking questions make you a traitor? Where does journalism become terrorism? Where defending constitutional rights is branded as anti-national? The evidence demands we confront an uncomfortable truth. The mechanisms of democratic accountability are being systematically dismantled. The hallmarks of authoritarianism are all present. There is criminalisation of dissent through the use of terrorism laws against journalists and activists. There is corporate capture of media, creating a propaganda ecosystem that shields power from scrutiny. There is selective prosecution targeting critics while protecting allies. There is financial intimidation through massive lawsuits designed to bankrupt independent voices. There is international isolation with deteriorating rankings in every freedom and democracy index. There are attacks on institutional independence undermining the courts, the election commission, and the investigation agencies. RSF writes: "With violence against journalists, highly concentrated media ownership, and political alignment, press freedom is in crisis in 'the world's largest democracy'." The quotes around "world's largest democracy" are not accidental. They reflect the international community's growing scepticism about India's legitimate claim to that title. Returning to where we started, Nitesh Rajput refuses to take down his video, maintaining that his analysis is based on verified public records and addresses concerns shared by many exam candidates. Student organisations and aspirant groups are mobilising, seeking wider judicial intervention and considering approaching the Supreme Court for an independent review of SSC's recruitment framework. This case has become a flashpoint because it represents something larger than a single YouTuber versus a single company. It represents millions of students who have faced the consequences of exam mismanagement. It represents every citizen's right to question how public institutions function. It represents the fundamental principle that public-interest journalism must be protected. It represents the question of whether RTI-based investigations can be silenced through defamation suits. The outcome of this case will send a message. Either India still protects those who speak truth to power, or it has completed its transformation into a state where only the powerful have rights. What must happen now requires immediate legal reforms. UAPA must be repealed or drastically amended to prevent its misuse against journalists and activists. Anti-SLAPP laws, which protect against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, must be strengthened to protect journalists from retaliatory defamation suits. Fast-track courts must be created for cases involving press freedom and journalist safety. Transparency must be mandated in government tender processes, especially for public examinations. Independent oversight must be established for internet shutdowns and content blocking. Institutional actions are equally urgent. The Supreme Court must intervene proactively in cases of journalistic persecution. Parliament must debate the state of press freedom with specific case studies. The Election Commission must ensure media pluralism and prevent corporate capture. Police reforms must prevent arbitrary arrests of journalists. Judicial accountability must be established for judges who enable prolonged incarceration without trial. Civil society must mobilise by supporting independent journalism through subscriptions and funding, challenging defamation suits through collective legal defence funds, applying international pressure through global press freedom organisations, organising public protests demanding the release of jailed journalists, and implementing consumer boycotts of media organisations that serve as government propaganda. The Nitesh Rajput case, the imprisonment of Siddique Kappan, the arrest of Prabir Purkayastha, and the murders of Mukesh Chandrakar and Raghvendra Bajpai are not isolated incidents. They are symptoms of a democracy in crisis. We stand at a crossroads. One path leads to a country where journalists can investigate without fear, citizens can criticise power without persecution, RTI-based analysis is protected as public interest, courts defend fundamental rights against government overreach, and India reclaims its position as a genuine democracy. The other path leads to a country where asking questions becomes a crime, journalism becomes terrorism, corporate power crushes individual voices, legal process becomes a weapon of intimidation, and "democracy" becomes a hollow brand with no substance. The choice is ours. But the window is closing. Every day we allow these injustices to continue, every day we remain silent as journalists are jailed and intimidated, every day we accept the normalisation of authoritarianism, we move further down the second path. Nitesh Rajput did nothing wrong. He asked questions based on public documents. That should never result in a ₹2.5 crore lawsuit in a democracy. Siddique Kappan did nothing wrong. He tried to report on a crime. That should never result in 850 days in jail in a democracy. The dozens of journalists attacked, threatened, sued, and murdered did nothing wrong. They did their jobs. That should never result in violence, intimidation, or death in a democracy. But here we are.

The test of a democracy is not how it treats the powerful and compliant. It is how it treats those who speak uncomfortable truths, who challenge corruption, who defend the powerless, who question authority. By that test, India is failing catastrophically. The question is: Will we accept this failure? Or will we fight for the democracy we were promised?

This article represents the views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the editorial position of this publication. All facts presented are based on publicly available records, court documents, international press freedom reports, and credible news sources.

Sources: Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index 2023-2025, Committee to Protect Journalists reports on India, Supreme Court judgments in cases of Siddique Kappan and Prabir Purkayastha, Free Speech Collective data on attacks on journalists,

https://video.wixstatic.com/video/1fb4ae_2e2b740784f9419ca73cb4fb322c1545/720p/mp4/file.mp4