The FIR Against Four E20 Influencers: Criminal Charges for Policy Criticism

On July 14, 2026, Nagpur Cyber Police registered FIR No. 0092/2026 against four social media influencers — Manish Kashyap, Desi Boys NCR, Harshit Rathi, and Anklesh Invate — for allegedly using “fake or misleading interviews” to malign the E20 ethanol fuel policy and a senior minister’s image. The complaint came from the convenor of the BJP’s Nagpur City Social Media Cell. Two of the four had their social media accounts disappear within days. The case became a test of whether criticism of government fuel policy should attract criminal prosecution in a democracy.

The FIR: details

The FIR was registered as FIR No. 0092/2026 at the Nagpur Cyber Police station. The complaint was filed by the convenor of the BJP’s Nagpur City Social Media Cell, who alleged that the four influencers had created and disseminated content containing fake or misleading interviews intended to:

• Malign the E20 ethanol blending policy
• Defame a senior Union Minister (identified in media reports as Nitin Gadkari)
• Spread misinformation about the impact of E20 on vehicles

The charges

The FIR invoked the following sections:

The inclusion of BNS 296 and IT Act 67 was immediately questioned. These provisions deal with obscenity — typically applied to pornographic or sexually explicit content. Their application to videos criticising a fuel policy was described by legal commentators as unusual, to say the least.

Who was named

Manish Kashyap

Bihar-based YouTuber with 9.3 million subscribers, known for confrontational citizen journalism. He had uploaded a viral video claiming his Toyota Innova Hycross developed engine problems on E20 after 12,000 km. Toyota subsequently found contaminated fuel — not standard E20 — was the cause. Kashyap is the highest-profile of the four.

Desi Boys NCR

A content creator account based in the NCR (National Capital Region). Less publicly known than Kashyap but with a significant following in the automotive and lifestyle space.

Harshit Rathi

A social media creator who posted E20-related content. After the FIR, Rathi’s social media account disappeared and he reportedly shared an apology video.

Anklesh Invate

A social media creator whose Instagram account was deactivated after the FIR. Like Rathi, he reportedly shared an apology video before the account went offline.

What happened after the FIR

The immediate aftermath followed a pattern:

1. Anklesh Invate’s Instagram deactivated: His account went offline within days of the FIR. Whether this was voluntary (self-deactivation), platform-initiated (Instagram responding to reports or legal process), or the result of mass reporting is not independently confirmed. He reportedly posted an apology video before the account disappeared.
2. Harshit Rathi’s account disappeared: A similar pattern — account offline, preceded by an apology video. The circumstances of the removal were not publicly clarified.
3. Manish Kashyap remained active: As the highest-profile of the four, Kashyap continued to maintain his YouTube presence, though the FIR remains a legal matter he must contend with.

The pattern of apology videos followed by account disappearances raised questions about whether the influencers were genuinely apologetic, pressured into compliance, or advised by lawyers to minimise their digital footprint while criminal proceedings were pending.

The complainant: a party social media cell

A significant detail is who filed the complaint. The FIR was not filed by:

• Toyota (the OEM whose vehicle was allegedly misrepresented)
• The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (which administers the E20 programme)
• A consumer protection body
• An affected individual

It was filed by the convenor of the BJP’s Nagpur City Social Media Cell. This is a party-affiliated digital outreach position, not a government or regulatory role.

This matters because it reframes the prosecution from a consumer-protection or public-interest action into a party-political response to criticism. The allegation was not that vehicles were not actually damaged or that consumers were misled in a way that caused them harm. The allegation was that the content maligned a policy and a minister associated with the ruling party.

The legal debate

Can policy criticism be “public mischief”?

BNS Section 353 (statements conducing to public mischief) is the successor to IPC 505. It criminalises the making, publishing, or circulating of statements that are likely to cause fear, alarm, or incitement. The threshold is whether the statement is likely to disturb public tranquillity.

The question is whether criticising a fuel policy — even with inaccurate or exaggerated claims — reaches this threshold. Millions of vehicle owners have shared negative E20 experiences on social media. If sharing a critical experience can be characterised as “public mischief,” then the provision has no meaningful limit in the context of policy debate.

Is automotive content “obscene”?

BNS 296 and IT Act 67 are obscenity provisions. They are designed for content that is “lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest.” Their application to videos about fuel quality and vehicle damage has no obvious legal basis.

Legal commentators have suggested that these sections may have been included to increase the severity of the charges or to invoke the IT Act’s broader jurisdiction. Whatever the tactical reason, applying obscenity charges to automotive content stretches the law beyond its intended scope.

The chilling effect

The most consequential aspect of the FIR is not whether the four influencers are ultimately convicted — criminal cases in India routinely take years — but the immediate deterrent effect on everyone else. When a government-aligned entity files criminal charges against people who criticised a fuel policy, the message to all other potential critics is clear:

• You could be next.
• You will not be charged by a regulator with due process; you will be charged on a complaint from a party functionary.
• The charges may include obscenity provisions that have nothing to do with your content.
• Your social media accounts may disappear.
• Your best option may be to apologise and go quiet.

This is the textbook definition of a chilling effect: the cost of speaking is raised high enough that rational people choose silence, even if they have legitimate grievances.

The asymmetry with the paid campaign

The FIR against E20 critics was filed in the same period that a paid influencer campaign promoting E20 was exposed. Influencer agency Hextech Media offered up to ₹15 lakh to creators for pro-E20 content. Multiple influencers participated without disclosing the paid nature of the content, in violation of ASCI guidelines.

The contrast is stark:

• Critics of E20: FIR with criminal charges, account deactivations, apology videos.
• Paid promoters of E20: No FIR, no ASCI enforcement, content stayed online with millions of views.

Undisclosed paid promotion is a violation of advertising standards. Misleading the public about the nature of content (organic opinion vs paid advertisement) is arguably a greater deception than an individual sharing a vehicle experience that turns out to be attributable to contaminated fuel rather than E20. Yet only the critics faced criminal prosecution.

What the case means for E20 discourse

The FIR against four influencers is not primarily about four individuals. It is about whether India’s E20 debate can remain open. Consider:

1. Sourav Joshi (39.5M subscribers) deleted E20 criticism from his vlog under unclear circumstances.
2. Four influencers face criminal charges for critical content.
3. Tehseen Poonawalla was allegedly placed under house arrest before an anti-E20 protest.
4. Paid promotion of E20 ran without disclosure or consequence.

Taken together, these events create an environment where praising E20 is rewarded (with payment) and criticising it is punished (with prosecution). In such an environment, the absence of criticism does not indicate that the policy is working — it indicates that the cost of speaking has been raised above what most people are willing to pay.

The factual position

Sources

• The Federal — FIR against four influencers over E20 posts
• CarToq — FIR filed against influencers for E20 claims