By Nanditha S
There was a time when the press in India was trusted as the mirror of society—an institution expected to reflect reality, question authority and protect the public interest. That trust is now under severe strain. A growing section of the media, instead of holding power to account, appears more inclined to please the administration by circulating false reports and fabricated narratives. The result is not merely the defamation of individuals; it is the progressive defamation of journalism itself. When falsehoods are published to align with the interests of those in power, the media loses its claim to credibility and the public loses faith in an institution once regarded as essential to democracy.
The recent case of folk singer Neha Singh Rathore and ABP News illustrates this erosion with particular clarity. On 17 October 2026, ABP Network’s digital platform broadcast a report under a headline that effectively read “Sex racket in Neha Singh Rathore’s hostel, police conduct raid.” The item placed Rathore’s photograph and name alongside footage of a police raid, implying she was linked to a prostitution operation. Fact-checkers later identified the footage as unrelated archival material. Rathore, a Bhojpuri folk singer whose songs criticise unemployment, price rise and government policies, responded at once. She stated publicly that she was neither a call girl nor a prostitute and owned no such hostel. She telephoned ABP News senior editor Rajneesh Ahuja, demanded the channel name the premises and produce evidence, and accused the network of character assassination. She further alleged that after the BJP’s IT cell failed to silence her, sections of the media had been deployed to attack her dignity as a woman.
ABP Network subsequently issued a clarification admitting the report was “factually incorrect” and apologising for the “erroneous broadcast.” Rathore rejected the apology. She declared, “Court mein mulaqat hogi. Mujhe nyay chahiye, maafi nahi” — “See you in court. I want justice, not an apology.” She has indicated she will file a defamation lawsuit, relying on the original broadcast, her recorded conversation with the editor and related material.
Under Indian law the case rests on strong foundations. Defamation may be pursued through a civil suit for damages and injunction or a criminal complaint under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Because ABP has already conceded that the report was false, the principal defences available to a media organisation—truth, good-faith reporting or public interest—are substantially weakened. Courts have held that the publication of a false and stigmatising allegation, particularly one involving sexual misconduct, against an identifiable person constitutes actionable defamation. Possible outcomes include an award of substantial damages for reputational and mental harm, a court-ordered corrective statement, and, if a criminal complaint is sustained, potential conviction and fine. High-profile cases of this nature have sometimes ended in settlement with public apology and compensation; others have proceeded to judgment that keeps the original falsehood in public view. Either path places the network under prolonged judicial scrutiny.
The episode has drawn criticism across political lines. BJP MP Kangana Ranaut, despite ideological differences with Rathore, described the act of defaming a woman for television ratings as “absolutely despicable” and said the head of ABP should take responsibility. The larger consequence, however, extends beyond one network and one individual. When media organisations repeatedly publish unverified or fabricated material that serves the interests of those in power, they diminish the institution itself. Each such incident reinforces public scepticism, accelerates the turn toward alternative platforms and makes it harder to distinguish genuine journalism from propaganda.
Rathore’s decision to reject a mere apology and seek formal legal redress therefore tests more than one network’s liability. It asks whether courts will treat acknowledged falsehoods by powerful media houses as serious wrongs rather than minor errors. The answer will signal whether the press remains accountable to the truth or continues to operate with impunity when its mistakes align with the administration. In either case, the damage to public faith in the media as society’s mirror has already been inflicted.