Uttar Pradesh: Journalist arrested, police say he ran Samajwadi Party Twitter handle; party denies link with him

Yadav, who runs a YouTube channel, has been sent to judicial custody.

Lucknow ACP (Hazratganj) Arvind Kumar Verma said, “It was found during the probe that he (Yadav) uses the Twitter account (of SP). The investigation is underway and hence I can’t reveal more details.”

The complaint lodged by journalist Manish Pandey reads, “On November 20, the Samajwadi Party Media Cell – @MediaCellSP–  made a controversial post about the Gorakhnath mutt with a political objective… On repeated occasions, the account attacks the Gorakhnath mutt…  The mutt is the centre of religious importance for crores of Hindus. I wrote that the mutt should not be dragged into politics and that (the tweets) should be restricted to 5, Kalidas Marg (CM’s residence)… After that, the said Twitter account started using objectionable words against me.” “The Twitter account is ruining the peaceful order of the state for political objectives and is spreading hatred and hence action should be taken against the person/persons tweeting from this account,” said the complaint. When contacted by The Indian Express, SP national spokesperson Rajendra Choudhary said, “Anil Yadav has nothing to do with the Twitter handle of SP Media Cell. He is a journalist.”

In a tweet from the same handle, the SP wrote, “Anil Yadav should be released immediately and should be sent home with respect. The BJP government is murdering democracy and disrespect the Constitution… They are trying to stop pro-people journalism with the use of power… Free speech is the constitutional right of every citizen…”

In another tweet, the party wrote, “Through his YouTube channel, journalist Anil Yadav is exposing the atrocities on people. Angered by this, the BJP has used the administration to arrest him in an unconstitutional manner…”

The case against SP Media Cell Twitter account was filed under IPC sections 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups), 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings), 500 (defamation), 505 (2) (statements conducing to public mischief), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and under section 66 (sending offensive messages) of the Information Technology Act.