Delhi Police Special Cell has registered a case against senior advocate Prashant Bhushan over a video that police allege was doctored and shared from his social media handle.
Police allege the clip falsely presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as making remarks critical of India, including on its internal affairs and oil purchases.
The case was recorded as FIR number 263/26 at the Special Cell police station, according to the report published on 4 November.
What the police allege, and what the law cited covers
Police cited provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act, including provisions relating to forgery, public mischief, defamation and identity related offences, according to the report.
The report says the matter came to light during cyber patrolling on 3 November, when the Special Cell's IFSO unit found the video in circulation.
Police allege misleading, defamatory and inflammatory material was being spread through the video to create rumours and unrest among the public. That allegation is reported as a police claim, not as an established finding, because the investigation is ongoing.
The fact check that came before the case
The foreign ministry's fact check unit had earlier described the circulating video as fake and edited, and warned social media users against believing or sharing the purported remarks.
The report also says the Russian embassy had earlier described the video as fake and edited. The clip at the centre of the case purportedly showed Lavrov saying that Russia's commercial relationship with India did not give New Delhi the right to interfere in Moscow's foreign policy or advise it on Russia, Ukraine, the United States or other countries.
A separate manipulated video featuring External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has also been circulating on social media, according to the same coverage, which underlines why the fact check unit issued its warning.
What happens next
Police are now investigating the source and circulation of the video, according to the report. No outcome of that investigation had been reported at the time of the 4 November article.
The case turns on whether the clip was doctored and who created and circulated it, questions that only the investigation and any court process can settle. Until then, the video should be described as alleged to be doctored, and the remarks in it should not be attributed to Lavrov as his own words.
The timing matters for readers: the video was shared on 3 November, the fact check followed, and the police case was reported on 4 November. The sequence is reported here in that order, so the case is not presented as if it came before the fact check.
