BackLAW
Academician Madhu Kishwar booked over misleading content on social media
Chandigarh police booked academician Madhu Kishwar following a complaint about forged and misleading social media content, including a video misidentifying a person. An FIR was registered against Kishwar and others, with investigations ongoing. The case involves alleged creation of false electronic records and content intended to harm reputations.
Why It Matters
The case highlights concerns about misinformation and defamation on social media in India and the use of statutory provisions to address it, with police investigations underway.
Timeline
4 Events
Report on Kishwar case published
April 21, 2026
An article reporting that Madhu Kishwar had been booked over misleading content on social media was published.
Police visit Kishwar to serve notice after FIR
April 20, 2026
Kishwar stated that a team of Chandigarh police visited her late Monday night to serve notice regarding the FIR registered against her. She noted that law forbids police from visiting or arresting women after dark and before sunrise, and she said she spoke to the delegation leader by phone and asked them to follow the morning schedule.
FIR lodged against Kishwar and others at Police Station Sector-26
April 20, 2026
An FIR was lodged against Madhu Kishwar and some other social media users under sections 196, 336 and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the IT Act at Police Station Sector-26, Chandigarh. The FIR followed the April 19 complaint, and a Chandigarh police official statement dated April 20 confirmed the registration of the case and that investigation was underway.
Complainant files April 19 complaint alleging forged and misleading social media content
April 19, 2026
A city-based complainant on April 19 alleged that forged and misleading social media posts and video clips containing obscene text were circulated and misidentified the person in the video. The complainant claimed the material was deliberately created as a false electronic record with obscene words and phrases, intended to mislead and cause damage, and that the video aimed to harm the reputation of a constitutional authority and disturb public peace. The complainant identified the person in the video as a travel vlogger whose wife regularly posts updates from their activities, with the original video reportedly shared from her social media account.