Yogi Adityanath seen calling reporter "Chutiya" on "live video"? UP govt says video "seems morphed"
ANI retracts video without explanation
Lucknow: A video of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath went viral across social media platforms wherein the CM is seen abusively lashing out at the cameraman of news agency Asian News International (ANI).
Adityanath had received his COVID vaccine minutes before the video was shot for a customary bite to the news agency.
“I would like to extend my greetings to the country’s scientists,” Adityanath droned on, before twitching at a minor interruption by a person in the room. He then lowered his voice and said, “Kya karte ho chutiyapane ka...” before the video cut off.
The video was soon trending with hashtag #YogiAdityanath on micro-blogging site Twitter. UP’s Additional Chief Secretary of Information Navneet Sehgal, was then quoted by news portal newslaundry.com as calling the video “morphed”.
Somebody must have played with the video,” Sehgal said. “We have uploaded the genuine video. He didn’t actually say it if you watch that.”
Meanwhile, ANI’s Uttar Pradesh bureau tweeted a retraction, stating that the video had been shot live. “Earlier issued live sound byte is retracted,” it said.
The video was then reuploaded wherein the CM is not seen abusing anybody.
When Newslaundry asked Sehgal Isn’t it likely that after Adityanath’s outburst, ANI reshot the video? He was quoted as saying “Only official videos go public, nothing else,” he said.
ANI has, however, not issued any statement in this regard except the retraction tweet without explanation.
This is how the 4th Pillar of Indian Democracy i.e. Media treated by BJP politicians!
— Siddharth Setia (@ethicalsid) April 5, 2021
No wonder why India ranks at 142 in World Press Freedom Index. #YogiAdityanath #IndianMedia #RIPDemocracy pic.twitter.com/rB6lubvrfm
Video byte of UP CM Yogi Adityanath on Covid vaccination
— ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) April 5, 2021
(Editors note: Earlier issued Live Sound byte is retracted) pic.twitter.com/td9qQHSnrX
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
K’taka HC declines stay on menstrual leave order, says issue of public importance
Bengaluru: The State Government has strongly defended its decision to grant one day of paid menstrual leave every month to women employees, telling the Karnataka High Court that the notification was issued in the larger interest of women and is legally sound. The Court, treating the matter as one of significant public importance, refused to stay the implementation of the order and adjourned the hearing to January 20.
The Labour Department’s November 20, 2025 notification was challenged by the Bangalore Hotels Association, Avirat Defence System, Facile Aerospace Technologies Ltd and Samos Technologies Ltd. Justice Jyoti Mulimani heard the petitions on Wednesday.
At the start of the hearing, the bench asked whether the State had filed its objections. Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty informed the Court that objections had been submitted and that copies would be provided to the petitioners.
Defending the notification, the Advocate General said the government had introduced a progressive measure aimed at women’s welfare, one that no other state in India had implemented so far. He told the Court that 72 objections were received and considered before finalising the notification. He argued that the government was empowered to frame such policy under Article 42 of the Constitution and noted that the Supreme Court and the Law Commission had earlier made recommendations in this direction.
ALSO READ: MP Brijesh Chowta urges centre to grant point of call status to Mangaluru airport
When the Court asked whether the notification applied to all sectors, the Advocate General replied in the affirmative. The bench observed that the matter required detailed hearing because of its wider public impact and decided to take it up in January. The Court added that petitioners may file their responses to the State’s objections before the next hearing.
Petitioners’ counsel B.K. Prashanth requested that the State be restrained from enforcing the order until the case is decided. The Advocate General responded that the government had already begun implementing the notification across all sectors.
Justice Mulimani noted that nothing would change between now and the next hearing and emphasised that the Court would consider all arguments thoroughly before issuing any direction. The bench then adjourned the matter to January 20 and asked petitioners to file any additional applications with copies to the State’s counsel.
