Fake Ram Mandir CEO Video: Why Abhijeet Dipke Must Face a Legal Probe
A completely unrelated video of a man dancing at a social gathering was turned into a controversy involving the Ram Mandir this week after social-media accounts falsely identified the man as Air Marshal (Retd.) Jeetendra Mishra, the newly appointed CEO of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust.
The claim was demonstrably false. Mishra had only recently been appointed the Trust’s first CEO, while the footage existed online months before his appointment and showed another person altogether. Yet the false identification travelled across social media before being amplified by several Indian accounts.
Among those who shared it was Abhijeet Dipke. His accompanying comment said there was nothing wrong with someone’s private behaviour but questioned how the so-called “dharm ke thekedaar” would have reacted if the person were not the CEO of the Ram Mandir Trust. The entire argument therefore rested upon a factual premise that was simply untrue.
Dipke subsequently issued a clarification acknowledging that the man was not Jeetendra Mishra. That correction matters. But it cannot automatically be treated as the end of the matter.
The question now is straightforward: should somebody be able to circulate a false and potentially inflammatory allegation involving the head of the Ram Mandir Trust, correct it after being challenged, and thereby escape even an examination by law-enforcement agencies?
We believe the answer is no. The authorities should investigate.
This Was Not an Innocent Meme About an Unknown Person
There is an important distinction between getting an inconsequential social-media fact wrong and attaching supposedly embarrassing conduct to the chief executive of the organisation managing the Ram Mandir.
Ram Mandir occupies an extraordinary place in India’s religious and political history. Jeetendra Mishra is not merely another public figure either. He is a retired Air Marshal who served as chief of the Indian Air Force’s Western Air Command before being appointed CEO of the Trust.
Anyone using such an institution and such an individual to make a political or ideological point has an elementary responsibility to establish that the allegation is true.
Dipke’s post did not merely reproduce a video without comment. His argument explicitly depended upon accepting the false identification of the man as the Ram Mandir Trust CEO.
That is precisely why a subsequent correction should not prevent scrutiny of how the claim came to be published.
A Correction Cannot Become Automatic Immunity
Corrections are an essential part of responsible public discourse. Someone who discovers an honest mistake should correct it promptly, and the law should certainly distinguish between a genuine error and intentional wrongdoing.
But there is an equally dangerous principle that must be rejected: publish first, verify later, and escape every consequence by posting a correction once the falsehood has already travelled.
Social media does not work that way. The original sensational allegation can reach thousands or millions of people. Screenshots survive deletion. Reposts continue circulating. The correction rarely follows the falsehood into every timeline where it appeared.
Dipke’s clarification should therefore be evidence for investigators to consider—not a reason why there should be no investigation at all.
Where Did The False Claim Come From?
This is where the case becomes even more worthy of examination.
Moneycontrol reported that the false attribution appeared on September 3 on a Pakistan-based Facebook page called Defence Watch before being circulated by Indian social-media accounts on September 6. The underlying video itself was older; what travelled in September was the false claim identifying its subject as Mishra.
That does not establish that Dipke knew where the misinformation originated. Nor should such knowledge be casually attributed to him without evidence.
It does, however, create an obvious investigative question.
Where did Dipke obtain the claim? Did he rely upon another Indian account? Did he make any attempt to confirm the identity before publishing his commentary? What information was available to him when he posted it? Were there already reasons to doubt the identification?
These questions cannot be answered through partisan arguments on X. Digital evidence can answer them.
The BNS Already Provides A Legal Framework
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita contains provisions specifically designed for circumstances in which electronic communication and false information potentially cross the line into criminal conduct.
Section 353(2) of the BNS covers the publication or circulation, including electronically, of false information, rumours or alarming news where the required intention or likelihood exists of creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between groups on grounds including religion. Importantly, the provision also contains an exception where someone had reasonable grounds for believing the information was true, acted in good faith and lacked the prohibited intent.
That makes investigation particularly appropriate here. Whether Dipke’s conduct actually satisfies Section 353(2) cannot responsibly be declared from a television studio or editorial desk. Investigators should examine whether the statutory ingredients exist.
Section 196 similarly addresses electronic communications that promote or attempt to promote disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill-will between groups on grounds including religion.
Authorities can also examine whether Section 299, dealing with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings by insulting a religion or its beliefs, has any application. That provision requires deliberate and malicious intention, making evidence of context and intent essential.
Nobody should demand that these sections be mechanically slapped onto a political opponent. But neither should they be treated as irrelevant merely because the person involved subsequently posted a correction.
Defamation Is Another Separate Question
There is also Jeetendra Mishra himself.
A false identification publicly associated him with conduct that he never engaged in. Whether that constitutes criminal defamation under BNS Section 356 is ultimately a separate question for Mishra and the courts.
Under Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, courts ordinarily take cognisance of criminal defamation upon a complaint by the person aggrieved.
Mishra therefore has remedies available should he choose to pursue them.
But the broader public-interest question surrounding potentially religion-linked misinformation does not disappear merely because he personally chooses not to complain.
Apply The Same Standard To Everyone
India cannot have one standard for anonymous social-media users and another for politically active influencers with substantial reach.
If an unknown account circulates inflammatory misinformation, police routinely investigate its origin, intent and circulation. The same evidentiary standard must apply whether the person sharing material is right-wing, left-wing, Congress-aligned, BJP-aligned, an activist or a journalist.
That is not censorship. It is equality before law.
Dipke must receive every protection available under the law. His correction must be considered. His explanation must be heard. No criminal intention should be presumed.
But neither should his prominence become protection from scrutiny.
Investigate First, Let The Evidence Decide
The appropriate response is neither social-media vigilantism nor instant conviction.
The relevant cybercrime authorities should preserve Dipke’s original post, establish its complete timeline, trace the source from which he received the false identification and examine whether he had reasonable grounds to believe it was genuine. They should also assess its context and determine whether the ingredients of Sections 353(2), 196, 299 or any other applicable provision are actually satisfied.
If they are not, the investigation should say so.
If they are, prosecution should follow.
Freedom of expression includes the freedom to criticise the Ram Mandir Trust, Hindu organisations, the government and religious personalities. That freedom must remain protected even when the criticism is harsh or offensive.
But freedom of expression is not a licence to attach false facts to real people and institutions without accountability.
Abhijeet Dipke has issued his correction. Now the authorities should establish how the false Ram Mandir CEO claim was amplified in the first place.
A correction can address a mistake. It cannot, by itself, decide whether the law was broken. That determination belongs to an investigation.
