1. Facts

The matter before the Supreme Court arose from an interim order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in an appeal connected to a civil defamation suit. The original suit, CS (OS) No. 524/2024, was filed by ANI Media Private Limited (plaintiff/respondent) against Wikimedia Foundation Inc. (appellant) and others. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief to restrain the publication of allegedly false and defamatory content on Wikipedia, a platform maintained by the appellant Wikipedia, and also sought the removal of existing content.

The chain of events leading to the Supreme Court’s intervention began on August 20, 2024, when a single judge of the High Court, hearing the defamation suit, passed an interim order. This order directed Wikimedia to disclose the subscriber details and IP addresses of certain platform administrators (editors) identified as defendants in the suit. This directive, which aimed to unmask pseudonymous online contributors, became a point of public discussion.

Following this order, on September 17, 2024, an opinion piece was published in the Indian Express newspaper and subsequently hosted on a Wikimedia platform. The article, titled “why the case against Wikipedia in India is a challenge to freedom of speech and information,” was critical of the court’s directive to disclose editor details. It argued that such an order could chill free expression and set a dangerous precedent. On October 10, 2024, the news agency Medianama published a video that further analysed the case, discussing its potential implications for safe harbour protections for intermediaries in India.

Wikimedia appealed the single Judge’s disclosure order. During the appellate hearing before a Division Bench on October 14, 2024, counsel for ANI brought these publications to the court’s attention, arguing they were intended to “pressurise the learned Single Judge.” The situation was further compounded on the same day by the creation of a “talk page” on Wikimedia’s platform, a standard feature for discussing edits, which in this instance was used for public discussion of the ongoing court proceedings.

Two days later, on October 16, 2024, the Division Bench passed the impugned order. The Bench formed a prima facie view that the commentary constituted “interference in Court proceedings” and that the principle of sub-judice had been “violated with impunity.” The Bench noted that its own observations from the previous hearing had been “‘opened up for discussion’ on Wikimedia Foundation Inc. website which, according to us, complicates and compounds the issue at hand.” Concluding that the content “borders on contempt,” the Division Bench issued a direct and non-appealable directive ordering Wikimedia to “take down/delete the said pages and discussion” within 36 hours. It was this takedown order that the appellant challenged before the Supreme Court.

2. Issues

The primary legal and constitutional issues before the Supreme Court were:

1. Whether the High Court’s interim order directing the takedown of online content constituted a legally valid prior restraint on speech, consistent with the requirements of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
2. Whether the High Court correctly applied the legal principles governing matters that are sub-judice and the law of contempt of court when issuing a mandatory takedown directive.
3. Whether the High Court’s order was a proportionate response to the perceived interference with the administration of justice.

3. Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Delhi High Court dated October 16, 2024. The Court held that the Division Bench had “reacted disproportionately” in issuing the takedown directive. It found the order to be an impermissible prior restraint on speech because it was not supported by adequate reasoning and failed to meet the established constitutional tests for such a restriction. The immediate effect of the judgment was the restoration of the online pages and discussions that had been ordered to be removed.

4. Reasoning of the Court

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was grounded in a detailed analysis of several established legal principles, which it systematically applied to the facts of the case.

• The Test for Prior Restraint: The Court’s analysis began with the appellant’s primary contention that the takedown order was an unconstitutional prior restraint. The Court referred to the definitive test laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. SEBI.[1] In that case, the Court held that a court-ordered postponement of publication is a “neutralizing device” to be used only in rare cases. The party seeking such an order must satisfy a stringent two-part test: first, demonstrate a “real and substantial risk of prejudice to fairness of the trial or to the proper administration of justice,” and second, show that “reasonable alternative methods will not prevent the risk.” The Supreme Court found the High Court’s order to be entirely devoid of this essential analysis. It contained no reasoning as to how the online commentary, which was based on publicly available information, posed a real and substantial risk to proceedings being conducted by a professional judge, who is trained and presumed to be immune to media pressure. The High Court had not articulated what specific prejudice would be caused or why less intrusive measures would be insufficient.
• The Principle of Open Justice: The Court emphasized that open justice is a foundational constitutional value, not merely a procedural formality. It drew upon the nine-Judge Bench decision in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, which had observed that a “public trial in open court is undoubtedly essential for the healthy, objective and fair administration of justice.”[2] The Court powerfully reiterated this by stating that a “trial held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial caprice or vagaries and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public.” This principle was further reinforced by citing Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, which laid down clear guidelines to regulate the live streaming and enabled people’s right to access justice under Article 21.[3] The Court framed public scrutiny not as a threat, but as an essential safeguard for the institution itself, quoting Jeremy Bentham’s observation that publicity “keeps the Judge himself, while trying, under trial.”
• The Law on Contempt of Court: The Court examined the narrow contours of criminal contempt and prescribed the appropriate judicial temperament when faced with criticism. This was a direct response to the High Court’s prima facie finding that the content “borders on contempt.” The Court drew heavily upon the jurisprudential wisdom of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer’s celebrated opinion in In Re S. Mulgaokar, which advised a “wise economy of use” of the contempt power and cautioned judges against being “hypersensitive.”[4] Justice Iyer’s opinion stressed that judges should “deflate vulgar denunciation by dignified bearing, condescending indifference and repudiation by judicial rectitude.” The Supreme Court also referred to Lord Denning’s approach, quoting him as saying, “We will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity… We do not fear… criticism, nor do we resent it.” By invoking these authorities, the Supreme Court indicated that the High Court’s reaction was not in line with the recommended standard of judicial fortitude and restraint.

In summary, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s order was disproportionate because it failed to apply the correct legal test for prior restraint and was inconsistent with the principles of open justice and judicial restraint in contempt matters. The Court also made the general observation that “it is not the duty of the court to tell the media: delete this, take that down,” signalling a clear disapproval of judicial censorship.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Wikimedia v. ANI clarifies and reinforces the high constitutional threshold required for issuing takedown orders or other forms of prior restraint against publications concerning sub-judice matters. The decision serves as a significant precedent, reaffirming that any such restriction on speech must be rigorously justified by demonstrating a “real and substantial risk” of prejudice to the administration of justice, a test that will be difficult to meet in cases involving professional judges.

The ruling underscores the constitutional importance of open justice, framing public discussion of court proceedings not as an obstacle but as a vital component of judicial accountability. It also provides important normative guidance for the judiciary, encouraging an institutional culture of resilience and restraint in the face of public criticism. For media organizations, journalists, legal commentators, and digital platforms, the decision provides a strong precedent to resist takedown orders that are not supported by a detailed, reasoned, and constitutionally compliant analysis.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

[1] CURATIVE PETITION (C) NO.85 OF 2013 in REVIEW PETITION (C) NO.2332 OF 2012 in CIVIL APPEAL NO.9813 OF 2011

[2] AIR 1967 SUPREME COURT 1

[3] AIR 2019 SC (CIV) 194

[4] 1978 AIR 727

Related:

Recalibrating Free Speech: The Supreme Court’s constitutional turn in the digital age

Mixed Messaging: Free speech jurisprudence from the Supreme Court

India’s Free Speech Crisis Deepens: 329 violations recorded in just four months of 2025

The post Reaffirming Open Justice: The Supreme Court on speech and contempt appeared first on SabrangIndia.

But we have now uncovered fresh evidence that suggests otherwise. In at least one case, YouTube stepped in to challenge ANI’s takedown notice and asked the agency to consider fair use, raising questions on how YouTube decides which disputes deserve scrutiny while leaving the rest to fight it out on their own.

Under YouTube’s rules, channels with three copyright violation claims in 90 days are terminated in seven days—forcing content creators to pay up large sums to ANI. Following The Collective’s expose, many prominent YouTubers went public, describing ANI’s business of copyright strikes as ‘extortion’ despite Indian copyright rules allowing content makers to use a tiny bit of copyrighted visual under fair-use doctrine for making something entirely new.

Mohak Mangal, one such YouTuber, claimed that ANI asked him to cough up Rs 48 lakh or face imminent shutdown of their channel. Others also went public with similar claims.

ANI had previously defended its actions. “It’s not extortion. It is lawful protection of property” the agency told The Collective during the initial investigation. (read here). YouTube, facing a rare blowback over its three-strike policy and its review mechanism in India, tried to claim it was playing an intermediary and not a judge.

Initially responding  to our investigation, it had told us, YouTube does not sit in judgment on such claims. It wrote to us, “We don’t adjudicate copyright ownership disputes or make legal determinations on the merits of fair use or other exceptions. Our role is to process copyright takedown notices that comply with applicable law.” (Read it here).

We have now found that YouTube’s claim that it just processes takedown notices significantly masks its internal review mechanism.

In a copyright case, YouTube actively mulled over claims of violation after a content maker pushed back against ANI, set off a chain mail seeking more information from ANI, and finally let the YouTuber retain the disputed content online.

However, it did not disclose the basis for its decision or why it changed its decision in the next.

During our investigation, we found YouTube had dealt differently with different content producers, pulling down some creators’ videos and letting off others. What was consistent in its policy was it did not tell the creators how it decided which material fell within the fair-use provisions of Indian copyright law and which didn’t, leaving them to live with the consequences of its decisions, and on several occasions, at the mercy of ANI.

This overwhelming and discretionary power that YouTube holds over the work of millions of creators has set off a heated debate since The Collective’s recent revelations.

Enter Ramit

Ramit Verma runs two popular satirical channels on YouTube: Official PeeingHuman and Kroordarshan. In June 2024, ANI began sending copyright violation notices to YouTube against 14 of his videos.

YouTube wrote back to ANI. “We are concerned that your copyright notification may not be valid for the video(s) listed below. Please keep in mind that in many countries, it is legal to use copyrighted works in specific ways without the owner’s authorization, particularly for transformative purposes such as news reporting, parody, commentary, or review.”

YouTube was referring to the ‘fair dealing’ provisions under the Indian copyright law.

It demanded more information from ANI for its claims.

Contrary to YouTube’s claim of not being an adjudicator, in this case it demanded details from ANI to find out if the videos had been made under fair dealing provisions of the law or not.

ANI then provided a detailed response for stated questions that YouTube reviewed and declined. It wrote to ANI, “We remain concerned that your removal request isn’t valid for the video(s) listed below. As a result the content will remain live on YouTube.”

YouTube wrote to Ramit, “We believe your content is protected by fair use, fair dealing, or a similar exception to copyright protection. We are writing to let you know we do NOT plan to remove your video(s) at this time.” YouTube had put the words in bold to add emphasis.

On the other two videos, YouTube agreed with ANI and blocked them. Ramit wrote back to YouTube that those too, were protected under the principle of fair dealing and were not in violation of copyright rules.

YouTube asked ANI if it had taken the dispute to court. ANI did not respond and YouTube unblocked these two videos as well.

ANI did not pursue any of its 14 notices further in court.

This case also shows that YouTube makes judgment calls on copyright disputes, and decides what is fair use of copyright material or what isn’t. When The Collective asked it to share its standards, tests and parameters for fair use on its platform, YouTube did not reply.

YouTubers have spoken against how this grey zone in YouTube’s policy has left a sword hanging over their heads, with ANI stepping up to use the opportunity to its advantage.

One of the prominent voices among them was Mohak Mangal, one of the largest current affairs creators in India on YouTube with over 4.6 million subscribers. On May 25, Mohak posted an 11-minute video on YouTube addressing ANI and what he claimed to be their “extortionary” tactics.

“This is their business model. Give a strike, get the channel deleted and use extortionary tactics to sell annual subscription plans. This is the state of the country,” he said.

In his video, Mohak claimed the media giant issued him two copyright strikes for using their clippings, one of which was as short as nine seconds. He furnished screenshots and emails, which he says are from ANI, stating the company initially demanded 48 lakh in penalties and licensing fees to remove the strikes. Otherwise, they threatened to issue more strikes to shut down his channel. Mohak also produced recordings of conversations that he says are negotiations between his team and an ANI official.

“On 20th May, I received my first copyright strike for my video on the Kolkata rape case. I made this video many months ago. Who sent the copyright strike, ANI. Why? Because in my 16 minute video I had used 11 seconds of their footage,” Mohak said in his video.

While Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act establishes grounds for fair dealing, which includes criticism, comment, news, and reporting, it does not specify the exact duration of footage a YouTuber can use in their video.

Mohak said he had learned of other YouTubers facing similar challenges from The Collective’s report. 

We were unable to independently verify Mohak’s claims. He and his colleagues declined to speak to us. ANI, too, didn’t respond to our questions on his allegations or the evidence he shared. Its Editor in Chief, Smita Prakash has retweeted an article on May 26 whose headline read, “Piracy is not free speech. Why YouTubers must pay for ANI’s content.’

In less than two days, Mohak’s video clocked over 48 lakh views and stirred several creators to reveal their negotiations with the agency.

At least six YouTube creators—@peepoye, @OnlyNews 24×7, @samir_talks, @Thugesh, @DhaakadKhabarIN, and @rajatpawarr—spoke out in Mohak’s comment section, revealing that they had also received copyright strikes from ANI, in some cases along with demands for penalties exceeding Rs 18 lakh.

@rajatpawarr later uploaded a YouTube video in which he claimed that ANI issued a strike for a clip that does not necessarily belong to the company, “One of the clips maybe did not belong to the channel (ANI), only their mike was showing, but they issued a strike anyway,” he claimed.

The Collective was unable to independently verify the creators’ claims, but sought ANI’s response in a detailed questionnaire.

When The Collective first reported this story on May 19, we spoke to at least four creators and identified four more who had either signed or were in the process of signing expensive copyright deals with ANI, following threats to shut down their channels. At the time all the YouTubers preferred to stay off the record.

We followed up our first set of unanswered questions with a second set to YouTube and ANI. Neither responded by the time of publication despite repeated reminders. You can read the questions at the end of the story. We will update this developing story if and when either responds to our queries.

Popular journalist and YouTuber, Ravish Kumar, had told us, “How can three violations steal one’s means of livelihood and years of work?”

While ANI has directly and indirectly indicated before and after the revelations that it stands by its business methods, YouTube has preferred to remain quiet. So far.

Courtesy: The Reporters’ Collective

The post YouTube Says it Doesn’t Judge Claims of Copyright Violation. We Found it Does appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The EU DisinfoLab has revealed its latest investigation into anti-Pakistan/China influence operations and this follows up on two previous investigations published in 2019 and 2020.

What does this investigation do and which is the errant agency?

Essentially expose fake source organisations named as “sources”, non-existent experts and bloggers that are regularly touted by the Indian agency, ANI that plays a heightened role in India’s news eco system especially since 2014.

The investigation that can be read here looks into a number of non-existent organisations, bloggers and journalists who are regularly quoted by Asian News International (ANI). Who is ANI? ANI is an Indian news agency that plays a relevant role in the country’s information ecosystem, providing content for many well-established media across India, such as The Print and Business Standard. ANI’s articles are also reproduced on well-known digital portals such as Yahoo News. With this network, ANI acts as the carrier of news to millions of Indians.

Even before, ANI had previously been accused of reporting the Indian government’s ‘version of truth’ by independent magazine The Caravan. Moreover, two previous EU DisinfoLab investigations have revealed that ANI regularly quoted the defunct ‘EP Today’ and ‘EU Chronicles’, two fake media outlets supposedly specialising in EU affairs that were, in fact, created to push anti-Pakistan/China narratives in India.

EU DisinfoLab’s investigation concludes that:

• ANI has been repeatedly quoting a think tank that was dissolved in 2014 and therefore no longer exists.

• ANI has been using quotes from a journalist, as well as from several bloggers and supposed geopolitical experts, who do not exist.

Fake personae, self-described as James Bond fans, basketball players and management consultants, became geopolitical experts quoted by ANI numerous times on topics such as Pakistan’s army doctrines and China’s ‘wolf warrior diplomacy’.

Interestingly, a think tank, that we had previously linked to the Srivastava group and that was legally dissolved in 2014, is now quoted about twice a week by ANI. The think tank’s website falsely mentions real Canadian university professors as participants in a conference that they never attended, even concocting false quotes by these academics. EU DisinfoLab had already observed this identity-hijacking pattern in our previous Indian Chronicles investigation.

The false narratives pushed by these fake personae and/or organisations are almost entirely about criticising Pakistan and China, countries that are not India’s greatest allies on the international stage. These fake experts or think tanks are quoted almost solely by ANI and then republished across several Indian media outlets. Besides ANI and those outlets republishing its content, barely any other established media covered the reports produced by these ‘Bad Sources’ (BS) – the name we gave to this investigation.

Hence, the assessment that ANI has, at least, failed its readership by not respecting the fundamentals of the Charter of Munich. The fact that some of the ‘organisations’ mentioned use fake personae and are trying to hide their tracks while counting on being regularly quoted by ANI shows that ANI is, de facto, playing a key role in this influence operation.

Forbidden Stories and their media partners have also worked on this investigation.

The Wire  has reported that the latest report centres on the website of a Canadian-based think tank, International Forum for Rights and Security (IFFRAS). ANI quoted IFFRAS more than 200 times between May 2021 and January 2023. “In most instances, it was not only quoting but using IFFRAS ‘reports’ as the backbone of the articles,” the report says.

Though IFFRAS was dissolved in 2014, its website remained online and was being updated. EU DisinfoLab said that the same IP address hosted the IFFRAS website and other websites from the Srivastava group.

The report said that it tried to trace the speakers mentioned in the conference summaries on the website, but most seemed not to exist at all. “Our guess is that the sole purpose of the IFFRAS is to produce content that can be covered by ANI and then republished widely throughout the Indian press,” said the report

 Wondering if IFFRAS was a “single rotten apple”, the EU DisinfoLab researchers then looked into other foreign experts at ‘think tanks’ that are mentioned frequently by ANI. They came across the Policy Research Group (POREG), whose “geopolitical experts” were quoted frequently by ANI on issues like Pakistan’s army doctrines and Chinese foreign policy. 

The report claimed that despite numerous efforts to contact these experts with names like ‘James Duglous Crickton’, ‘Magda Lipan’ – sometimes misspelled as Magad Lipan or Magda Lipin – and ‘Ms Valentin Popescu’, they did not seem to be available.

 “Yet somehow, despite the laughable misspellings and bios, these James Bond fans, basketball players and management consultants have become geopolitical experts, quoted by ANI numerous times,” the report says.

A third organistaion which ANI started quoted reports in 2021 were published by the Center of Political and Foreign Affairs (CPFA), a think tank based in France and registered in Hong Kong which genuinely exists. But, alongside the legitimate reports by the CPFA team, ANI was publishing content that EU DisinfoLab “could not attribute to real individuals”.

Did the DisinfoLab tried to get their version ? Yes! The authors of the report said they again tried to reach out to two “experts” who were ostensibly working at CPFA but “did not receive any response to our requests”.

According to the report, the fake entities and personalities, seemingly based in Europe and North America, were probably propped up as “a way of bringing more credibility and legitimacy to these narratives”, which “almost entirely” were about criticising Pakistan and China.

“Thus, the actors involved seem to prefer using badly constructed fake profiles or fake organisations, even when previously uncovered, rather than relying on real organisations and people,” said the report.

“Worse still, ANI does not seem to be concerned by being the only major agency quoting them as a primary source. In other words, journalists working at ANI must know these sources are fabricated – and if they don’t, they are failing as journalists. In fact, who really cares?” the report asks.

EU DisinforLab also concluded that ANI has “at least, failed its readership by not respecting the fundamentals of the Charter of Munich”. It added, “The fact that some of the ‘organisations’ mentioned use fake personae and are trying to hide their tracks while counting on being regularly quoted by ANI shows that ANI is, de facto, playing a key role in this influence operation.”

The latest EU DisinfoLab report was released in conjunction with the “Story Killers” project to investigate the disinformation-for-hire-industry. Coordinated by French non-profit Forbidden Stories, the project hopes to continue the work of slain Kannada-language journalist Gauri Lankesh.

ANI was set up as Asian Films Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. in 1971, and was renamed ANI in the 1990s. Though questions have been raised about ANI’s independence and the veracity of its reports, it has remained the most popular source of information for Indian media organisations. Reuters held a 49% stake in ANI until December 2022, when it was forced to reduce its shares to comply with revised rules on foreign direct investment in media platforms.

Related:

Stand up for media freedom & ethical journalism: NWMI

Social media platforms finally compel extremist groups to shun hate speech, fake news

The post #BadSources – How Indian news agency ANI quoted sources that do not exist – EU DisinfoLab appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Recently a group of former defence personnel wrote to the President of India urging him to prevent political parties from to stop using the military for political gains. Over 150 veterans signed the letter to President Ramnath Kovind requesting that he “ensure that the secular and a-political character of our Armed Forces is preserved.” They added, “We hereby respectfully urge you to take all necessary steps to urgently direct all political parties that they must forthwith desist from using the military, military uniforms or symbols, and any actions by military formations or personnel, for political purposes or to further their political agendas.” The letter was also copied to the Chief Election Commissioner.

However, soon afterwards, ANI reported that some of the signatories to the letter denied writing it and claimed that their names were added without their knowledge or consent. In their story, ANI quoted Lt Gen (Retd) ML Naidu as saying, “No, my consent has not been taken for any such letter, and neither have I written any such letter.” ANI even tweeted the quote attributing it to Naidu. ANI also claimed that former army chief S.F Rodrigues and former Air Chief Marshal NC Suri had also denied writing to the president or given their endorsement to the letter.

But now according to a report by News Central 24×7, Lt Gen (Retd) Naidu has been misquoted by ANI and a video of the ANI interview does not show him making the statement attributed to him. The Wire also conducted an independent inquiry and discovered that the endorsement of signatories was sought and painstakingly collated.

Now, Major Priyadarshi Chowdhury, SC (Retd) has written to top executives at Thomson Reuters, who have “an investor relationship and strategic partnership over editorial content” with ANI to share the concerns of veterans over ANI’s conduct.

The entire text of the letter is reproduced below:
************************************************************
Dear Mr Adler, Mr Friedenberg, Ms Carpenter, Mr Austin and Mr Ivory-Harte,
 
My name is Maj Priyadarshi Chowdhury, SC (Retd) and I am writing on behalf of a group of retired officers of the Indian armed forces, to share our concern and anger over the recent conduct of Asian News International (ANI), with which Thomson Reuters has both an investor relationship and strategic partnership over editorial content.
The context of this complaint is ANI’s recent reporting on our petition, signed by over 150 military veterans, and addressed to the President of India, to protest the appropriation of the armed forces into political campaigning.

In this context, serious questions arise about ANI’s motives and practices in reporting the alleged denials by some senior officers that they had ever signed the letter.

Two recent stories lays bare the matter:
ANI Tried to Discredit Veterans’ Appeal to President – but Proof Was a Click Away

https://thewire.in/media/ani-veterans-appeal-president-proof
 
https://newscentral24x7.com/lt-general-ml-naidu-ani-letter-to-president-lies/
 
I would be grateful if you read it to the end, including the brief note on ANI’s National Security Editor and his public political stance. We believe that ANI has acted at the behest of India’s ruling party to manipulate quotes and defame our honourable intentions. In our opinion, ANI’s conduct tantamounts to being perfidious with a view to influence the ongoing elections, in India, in a biased manner.

In order for us to plan our further action, could you please inform us as to:
1) How Thomson Reuters evaluates the editorial practices of its strategic partners, to the end of assuring journalistic balance and editorial quality?

2) Whether Thomson Reuters evaluated or examined the practices, political affiliations, and reputation of ANI prior to expanding its strategic partnership in June 2018?

3) Regarding the above, if so, what was Thomson Reuters’ finding about ANI? If not, on what basis does Reuters evaluate the quality and validity of editorial material received from its partners?

4) Whether Thomson Reuters believes that ANI’s motivated misreporting of our genuine and Constitutional appeal meets its own standards for editorial propriety. It is upto Thomson Reuters to evaluate whether such conduct by an investee company meets your mission statement of “….we do business according to the highest standards of ethical and responsible conduct.”
Thomson Reuters commands respect and trust the world over, and in recognition of this, we hope for a reply addressing our concerns.

Yours Sincerely
Maj Priyadarshi Chowdhury, SC (Retd)
**********************************************************************
 

The post Veterans take on ANI after story on their alleged denials about writing to the President appeared first on SabrangIndia.