Journalists Booked and Jailed in Vidarbha for Criticising Authorities

thenewsdirt
Jul 18
8 min read

In recent years, a worrying pattern has emerged in Vidarbha. Journalists who speak up against authorities are finding themselves on the receiving end of police cases, detentions, and legal intimidation.

In one stark example, a 26-year-old independent reporter from Kerala, Rejaz M. Sheeba Sydeek, was arrested in Nagpur in May 2025 for a social media post criticising an Indian Army operation. His case is not isolated. From Nagpur’s urban centres to smaller districts, instances have piled up of journalism voices being squashed when they expose wrongdoing or criticise those in power.

The harassment comes not from random citizens but government agencies such as local police, officials, and even state ministers, leveraging the law to silence criticism.

This article delves into detailed accounts from the last five years (2020–2025) in Vidarbha that illustrate how press freedom is being curtailed and the factual circumstances behind each incident.

FIRs for Criticising Authorities

A common tactic to muzzle critical voices in Vidarbha has been the use of First Information Reports (FIRs) and defamation laws.

Even mild criticism of officials or government bodies has triggered police cases. A telling incident occurred in Nagpur in March 2023, after the city hosted a Civil20 event as part of the G20 meetings.

A local journalist posted a tweet questioning the Nagpur Municipal Corporation’s actions, specifically, the removal of newly planted saplings around Futala Lake right after the high-profile event.

The tweet included a photo of the city’s Municipal Commissioner and implied that the civic body’s conduct was cosmetic and short-sighted. Instead of responding with an explanation, authorities filed a criminal case.

Nagpur’s Sadar Police invoked Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code (criminal defamation) against the journalist for his critical social media post. Another social media user who highlighted an unrelated civic gaffe (a mislabelled statue) was also booked in the same swoop.

These legal actions signal a low tolerance for even social media commentary on local governance. Using defamation law, ordinarily meant to protect individuals from false reputation damage, to target a reporter’s tweet about saplings is widely seen as heavy-handed. It illustrates how government officials in Vidarbha have employed the law to intimidate journalists who embarrass them, sending a message that public critique can carry personal legal risk.

Police in Vidarbha have also shown readiness to act on complaints that stem from political or cultural sensitivities.

In early 2025, Nagpur-based journalist Prashant Koratkar found this out the hard way. Koratkar was arrested and remanded to custody in March 2025 after an audio recording of a private phone conversation sparked outrage.

In that leaked call, between Koratkar and a historian, the journalist allegedly made derogatory remarks about 17th-century Maratha king Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and his son Sambhaji, figures revered across Maharashtra.

Once the audio went viral on social media and complaints poured in, police registered an FIR under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) code for “promoting hatred or enmity between groups”. Koratkar, a resident of Nagpur, was tracked down and picked up by Kolhapur police even though he had already publicly apologised and claimed the clip was doctored.

A court denied his anticipatory bail, and he was brought to Kolhapur under tight security to face interrogation. The use of harsh legal provisions in this case, treating an informal conversation as a criminal offence, highlights how authorities can stretch laws to criminalise a journalist’s speech.

Observers noted that no threats or calls for violence were made by Koratkar. Nevertheless, he was treated as a serious offender. The incident has had a chilling effect on Vidarbha’s press. It signalled that even offhand comments or critical views about historical or political icons can invite police action if those in power deem it offensive.

Criminalising Dissenting Voices

Journalists in Vidarbha who pursue hard-hitting stories or commentary on security and human rights issues have faced even more severe harassment.

The arrest of Rejaz M. Sheeba Sydeek in Nagpur stands out as a dramatic example. Rejaz is an independent journalist and activist whose writings focus on police excesses and prisoner rights.

On May 7, 2025, Nagpur Police detained him at a local hotel, citing “intelligence inputs” that he was in the city and allegedly involved in anti-state activities.

The real trigger, however, appears to have been Rejaz’s online posts critical of government actions. He had condemned “Operation Sindoor”, a set of Indian Army strikes against militant targets, after reports emerged that civilians were caught in the crossfire.

In an Instagram post, Rejaz allegedly wrote “Indian Army murdabad” (meaning “death to the Indian Army”) alongside an image of a child victim, questioning if targeting kids could ever be just.

This post, vehemently critical of the military’s operation, was singled out in the FIR. The police also noted that Rejaz had spoken at a public event in Delhi about the criminalisation of journalists just days before, and then travelled to Vidarbha, movements they portrayed as suspicious.

What followed was an array of grave charges. Invoking the newly introduced Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), part of India’s overhauled penal laws. Nagpur authorities booked Rejaz under Section 149, accusing him of “collecting arms…with the intention of waging war against the Government of India”.

This colonial-era “waging war” charge (now codified in BNSS) carries a potential life sentence, and its use against a journalist for social media content raised serious alarm among press freedom advocates.

In addition, Rejaz was charged under multiple subsections of Section 353 for allegedly provoking riots and making statements conducing to public mischief. Police justified these charges by pointing to an old Instagram photo of Rejaz posing with what appeared to be two pistols (which turned out to be airgun replicas) and by claiming he had links to banned extremist groups.

Over the course of three successive remands, the grounds for his detention kept shifting from “anti-India social media posts” initially to later alleging contacts with Maoist-affiliated cultural groups. Rejaz’s colleagues and friends have scoffed at these accusations, noting that he has been a journalist and social worker who often critiqued police abuses.

They say he was under surveillance for years simply because his reporting and student activism were inconvenient to the authorities’ narrative.

Indeed, this was not the first time Rejaz faced harassment. He had been previously detained or booked in Kerala for covering sensitive stories and attending protests. In Nagpur, however, the stakes became much higher. Slapping a young journalist with “anti-national” labels and draconian charges sent a loud signal to others in Vidarbha’s media that dissenting commentary on security operations or human rights can be branded as sedition or terrorism support.

As of mid-2025, Rejaz remained in custody for interrogation, with police even seizing books from his hotel room as evidence of alleged subversive ideology. The unfolding of his case has drawn national attention, with press rights groups decrying it as a blatant misuse of law to punish a reporter for his views.

Another case underscoring this trend involved a Maharashtra-based digital journalist, Tushar Kharat, though the incident reverberated beyond Vidarbha. In March 2025, Kharat was arrested after he reported on a heated State Assembly debate that cast a minister in an unflattering light. During the assembly session, opposition legislators had raised an old sexual harassment case involving a ruling party minister, which led the minister to accuse them, and by extension, the media reporting it, of defamation.

Within days, Mumbai Police (acting on the minister’s complaint) arrested Kharat, accusing him of uploading “defamatory content” and even alleging he tried to extort money for not publicising the story.

While this did not occur in Vidarbha, journalists in Nagpur and other eastern Maharashtra areas watched the development closely, recognising a familiar playbook. The Indian Journalists’ Union (IJU) sharply condemned Kharat’s arrest and pointed out that he had merely published information that was part of an open legislative proceeding. “Arresting the journalist for publishing a story related to a state assembly proceeding is not a crime… Allegation of breach of privilege against the journalist for his reportage is unacceptable,” IJU leaders said in a statement urging the government to drop all charges.

Their words ring true across similar cases in Vidarbha. Often, those facing official ire were doing little more than disseminating facts or opinions that authorities found uncomfortable.

The Climate for Journalists in Vidarbha

These incidents over the last five years paint a grim picture of the media climate in Vidarbha. Reporters and editors in the region have become increasingly cautious, knowing that powerful figures may retaliate through police channels at the slightest provocation.

What might elsewhere be addressed through dialogue or rebuttals is, in Vidarbha, swiftly escalated to criminal complaints.

The impact on press freedom is evident in newsroom discussions. Several local journalists describe self-censoring content about government shortcomings, especially on sensitive topics like security operations, communal issues, or high-ranking officials’ conduct, for fear of facing an FIR.

The legal harassment, from defamation suits to arrests under stringent laws, is a form of intimidation that goes beyond the individual cases. It sends a broader signal to all journalists in the region about the limits of permissible reportage set arbitrarily by those in power.

Press rights observers note that such tactics in Vidarbha mirror a nationwide trend, but with an added edge due to the region’s unique challenges. Vidarbha has seen social flashpoints like farmer distress, tribal land rights struggles, and even Maoist insurgency in its periphery, all topics that journalists might cover critically.

Instead of appreciating the role of the press in highlighting these issues, some authorities have treated the press as adversaries to be controlled.

The Editors Guild of India has repeatedly warned against this heavy-handed approach. In a 2024 statement, the Guild expressed “deep concern on the misuse of criminal laws against journalists in an effort to intimidate and harass them.”

This concern is highly pertinent to Vidarbha, where misuse of laws has been at the core of silencing episodes. From Nagpur’s defamation cases to the invoking of anti-terror laws against reporters, there is a consistent pattern of using the letter of the law to stifle the spirit of free speech.

Yet, the resilience of journalists in Vidarbha is also evident. Despite the risks, many continue to pursue hard-hitting stories.

Some have fought back in courts, securing bail or quashing of flimsy cases, though such victories often come only after weeks or months of ordeal. Journalist unions and press clubs in Maharashtra have started to rally around colleagues in Vidarbha facing harassment, offering legal support and publicising their plights.

Every time a case of intimidation comes to light, it triggers debate and outrage in media circles, which puts pressure (however slight) on authorities to justify their actions. For example, after the Nagpur civic-body FIR over the sapling tweet, widespread ridicule on social media and critical coverage in the national press forced the local administration to quietly drop its aggressive posture.

Similarly, the handling of the Rejaz Sydeek case is now under scrutiny far beyond Nagpur, with human rights organisations watching if the police can substantiate their extreme allegations.

The experiences of Vidarbha’s journalists from 2020 to 2025 reveal a fraught relationship between the press and those in power. In this region of Maharashtra, writing against the authority, whether it’s exposing a bureaucrat’s failure, questioning a police operation, or commenting on a revered figure, can invite swift and punitive responses.

Each factual account presented here, from Nagpur’s defamation FIR to the dramatic arrest of a dissenting voice under anti-war charges, underscores an uncomfortable reality that the guardians of law in Vidarbha have at times become instruments to deter journalism’s core duty of speaking truth to power.