Nagpur Cyber Police Book Four Social Media Influencers for Alleged E20 Ethanol Misinformation — Including Bihar YouTuber Manish Kashyap
The Nagpur Cyber Police have registered a case against four social media influencers. They are accused of spreading misleading content about India’s ethanol blending policy. The case also alleges that they falsely linked the policy to Union Minister for Road Transport Nitin Gadkari.
The four accused are Manish Kashyap, Desi Boyser, Harshit Rathi and Anklesh Invate. Manish Kashyap is a popular YouTuber from Bihar with a large following.
All allegations in this article are as per the FIR filed with Nagpur Cyber Police. All accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.
Who Filed the Complaint?
The case was registered based on a complaint filed by Shishir Arun Tripathi, 38. He is the head of the Nagpur BJP Social Media Cell.
This is an important detail. The complainant is not a private citizen. He holds a position in a political party. Therefore, readers should be aware of this context when evaluating the nature of the complaint. The complaint was accepted by police and an FIR was registered on its merits.
What the Influencers Allegedly Did
According to the FIR, the four influencers uploaded videos on YouTube and Instagram. They did this during the ongoing public discussion about E20 petrol — the 20% ethanol-blended fuel that is now sold across India.
The complaint makes several specific allegations. First, the videos allegedly promoted illegal and fraudulent practices involving ethanol use in vehicles. Second, they allegedly explained methods to carry out fake transactions. Third, they allegedly encouraged activities that violate the law.
Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the videos misrepresented the Central Government’s ethanol blending policy. In addition, they allegedly falsely associated the policy with Union Minister Nitin Gadkari. The complaint also claims the videos used misleading public interviews. The purpose, according to the complainant, was to defame Gadkari and create confusion among viewers.
Why Manish Kashyap’s Name Stands Out
Manish Kashyap is not an unknown figure. He is a Bihar-based YouTuber with millions of subscribers. He has previously been embroiled in legal controversies over his video content.
In 2023, he was arrested for allegedly spreading fake videos about migrants in Tamil Nadu. That case drew national attention. He was granted bail subsequently and resumed active content creation. However, his track record of being involved in content-related FIRs makes his inclusion in this Nagpur case particularly noteworthy.
His large following means that any video he posts reaches a significant audience quickly. Therefore, authorities tend to take content by creators of his scale more seriously than that of smaller accounts.
The E20 Controversy — The Background You Need
To understand why this case has emerged, it is important to understand the broader E20 debate. Nagpur Updates covered this in detail in our article on Gadkari’s announcement about free washer replacements.
The E20 debate has been intense on social media. On one side, the Central Government and Minister Gadkari argue that E20 is scientifically validated and safe. ARAI testing supports this position. Free replacement of washers has been announced for older vehicles.
On the other side, many ordinary vehicle owners, mechanics and content creators have raised genuine questions. Some report reduced mileage. Others claim their older vehicles have developed problems. These concerns are real and are being discussed openly across India.
However, the complaint in this case goes further than raising questions. It specifically alleges that the accused promoted illegal practices, explained fake transactions and defamed a public official. Those are distinct and more serious allegations than simply criticising government policy.
The distinction is important. Criticising a government policy is legal. Spreading demonstrably false technical information that encourages illegal activity is a different matter. The court will need to determine which category the specific videos fall into.
What the Law Says — The Legal Provisions Applied
The Nagpur Today report does not specify the exact BNS sections applied in this FIR. However, based on the nature of the allegations — misinformation, defamation of a public official, promotion of illegal activities — the applicable provisions are likely to include the following.
Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita deals with defamation. It covers statements made to harm a person’s reputation. If the videos falsely represented Gadkari’s statements or positions, this section is applicable.
Section 318 of the BNS covers cheating by misrepresentation. If viewers were misled into believing the false technical claims and acted on them financially, this section could apply.
The Information Technology Act provisions on publishing false information electronically may also be invoked. Social media platforms fall under IT Act jurisdiction for content-related offences.
Nagpur Updates has contacted the Nagpur Cyber Police for confirmation of the specific sections registered. We will update this article when that information is confirmed.
The Free Speech Question — A Legitimate Debate
This case raises an important broader question. Where is the line between criticising a government policy and spreading illegal misinformation?
In a democracy, citizens and content creators have the right to question policies. The E20 policy has real-world implications for millions of vehicle owners. Reporting on user experiences — even negative ones — is legitimate journalism and legitimate content creation.
Moreover, several credible automobile journalists and portals have reported genuine concerns about E20’s impact on older vehicles. These reports are based on real user data. They have not resulted in criminal cases. Therefore, the question of why these four specific influencers were booked — and not others who have covered similar ground — is one that citizens have a right to ask.
At the same time, if specific videos encouraged viewers to engage in fraudulent transactions or illegal modification of vehicles, those are concrete harms that go beyond policy criticism. The court will assess the specific content of the videos and determine whether they cross the legal line.
Nagpur Updates takes no position on the guilt or innocence of the accused. However, we believe it is important to present this context so that readers can form their own informed view.
Manish Kashyap’s History With FIRs — Context
As noted above, Manish Kashyap has been in legal trouble before over video content. His 2023 arrest in the Tamil Nadu migrant worker fake video case was significant. The Supreme Court and High Courts were involved in that matter.
However, that previous case does not automatically mean he is guilty in this new case. Each FIR must be evaluated on its own merits. Past legal history is context, not proof.
Furthermore, the other three accused — Desi Boyser, Harshit Rathi and Anklesh Invate — are less widely known publicly. Their specific roles in the alleged misinformation campaign have not been detailed in available information at this time. Nagpur Updates will report further details as the investigation progresses.
What the Nagpur Cyber Police’s Role Is
The Nagpur Cyber Police — headed by DCP Deepak Aggrawal, who recently took charge — has jurisdiction over cyber-related offences in Nagpur district. Social media content that generates complaints within Nagpur or is directed at Nagpur-based individuals can fall under their jurisdiction.
In addition, the Nagpur Cyber Cell operates the Garud Drishti social media monitoring system. This system actively tracks content for potential legal violations. It was originally designed to monitor communal incitement. However, its monitoring capability extends to other categories of potentially illegal online content as well.
The registration of this FIR demonstrates that the cyber cell is actively pursuing complaints beyond communal content — into areas of alleged policy misinformation and defamation. This is a significant expansion of the type of cases the unit is taking up.
What Happens Next
The four accused will now need to respond to the FIR. They have several legal options. They can approach the Nagpur Cyber Police voluntarily to give their statement. They can approach the court for anticipatory bail if they fear arrest. Alternatively, they can challenge the FIR itself in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court through a quashing petition — arguing that the content does not amount to a criminal offence.
Manish Kashyap, given his experience with previous legal matters, is likely to respond through legal counsel promptly. His lawyer’s response, when issued, will be an important part of the public record of this case.
