A controversy erupted surrounding Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’s wife, Amruta Fadnavis, after Maharashtra Cyber Department issued a notice to X Corporation seeking details of multiple accounts and posts identified in an ongoing investigation.
The notice, dated October 19, 2026, was issued under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with FIR No. 82/2026 registered at the Nodal Cyber Police Station in Navi Mumbai. It seeks account registration records, email addresses, mobile numbers, IP addresses, login timestamps, device identifiers and other information that could help investigators identify the account operators.
The document lists multiple X accounts and individual post URLs. It also directs the platform to preserve available electronic evidence, including account records, login logs and post metadata.
According to the notice, the investigation concerns allegations of defamatory content, offensive remarks and material capable of provoking public sentiment. The FIR invokes Sections 352 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Intriguingly, some of the accounts mentioned in the list have been suspended. The suspension has naturally sparked discussion of high-handed behaviour by authorities and whether police action is justified for criticising Amruta Fadnavis over her endorsement on Muslim participation in Garba celebrations.
How Amruta Fadnavis’s Garba remarks triggered the controversy
The controversy began in September 2026 after Amruta Fadnavis endorsed Muslim participation in Garba and Dandiya events during Navratri in Maharashtra.
The Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) had called for Muslims to be barred from such events, a position backed by Maharashtra minister Nitesh Rane, who cited concerns of ‘Love Jihad’, a phenomenon where Muslim men lure Hindu girls in relationship with keeping their identity incognito. Amruta Fadnavis, however, expressed a different view, arguing that Muslims should be allowed to participate in Garba.
Speaking to reporters, she said:
“There is nothing wrong with a Muslim person attending the celebrations. If a Muslim also comes and enjoys the festival properly, I do not see anything wrong with it.”
"I think the festival of ours is inclusive… If any Muslim man wants to enjoy the Garba, there should be no problem." Amruta Fadnavis replies to Minister Nitish Rane’s statement calling to bar Muslims from Garba. https://t.co/x177BHlXqq
— Treeni (@treeni) September 8, 2026
Her remarks drew criticism from social media users who disagreed with her position and subsequently trolled her for her singing, public appearances and social engagements.
Maharashtra Cyber names multiple X accounts
The police notice identifies several accounts, including @kannadaveera, @Panditcasm, @RiseBharata, @Lawyer_Kalpana, @UnreservedMERIT, @aditya_pandit08, @wisenut and @Randomsenaog, among others.
Maharashtra Cyber has asked X to furnish information about account creation, registered contact details, login history, IP addresses, device identifiers, location-related information and metadata associated with the identified posts.
The agency has also sought information about linked accounts and third-party identities, where available, as part of efforts to establish who operated the accounts.
Posts deleted and accounts suspended as controversy over police action grows
Following the circulation of the FIR-related information and the police notice, several posts identified in the controversy were deleted. Some accounts mentioned in the list, including @randomsenaog, @tedha_memer have been suspended, although it has not been independently established whether those suspensions were directly linked to the posts concerning Amruta Fadnavis.
The developments have prompted questions about the scope of the police action. If the investigation concerns threats, unlawful abuse or other independently actionable content, those allegations must be assessed on their evidence. If the action extends to legitimate criticism or satire, it raises a different set of concerns about how law enforcement is being used to suppress criticism of those in power and their family members.
Children seen hitting Amruta Fadnavis’s posters with slippers
The controversy took another turn when videos purportedly showing children hitting or slapping posters of Amruta Fadnavis with slippers began circulating online.
Social media posts linked the footage to incidents in Ahilyanagar and Kolhapur, portraying the acts as part of the backlash against her Garba remarks. It was then used by some to justify police action against social media users over their posts on Amruta Fadnavis.
Allegations of a coordinated smear campaign and a ‘hitjob’
As the controversy exploded online and with many prominent influencers questioning the Fadnavis government for initiating action against ‘right-wing’ accounts criticising his Amruta Fadnavis, some social media presented a theory defending the Maharashtra government, claiming that the backlash against Amruta Fadnavis was not entirely organic and that there was a political conspiracy and public-relations networks linked to prominent leaders behind the ‘hitjob’ targeting Devendra Fadnavis.
According to this theory, her remarks were used as a pretext for a wider campaign involving distorted clips, unrelated photographs, personal attacks and videos of children striking her posters with footwear. Some have alleged that the broader objective was to portray Devendra Fadnavis as being at odds with Hindu sentiment by targeting his wife.
These claims have not been independently substantiated. No evidence was cited to establish that agencies linked to particular political leaders orchestrated the posts or videos.
‘Better than Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosle’: Sarcastic posts flood X
The police notice has also prompted a wave of sarcastic posts ostensibly praising Amruta Fadnavis’s singing, with users comparing her to legendary singers Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosle. A raft of social media users took to X to mockingly praise Amruta Fadnavis following the Maharashtra Cyber Department’s FIR on critical post against CM’s wife.
One user sarcastically described her as the greatest singer ever, claiming that she was better than Beyoncé and Taylor Swift and could sing in several languages.
Amruta Fadnavis ji is the greatest singer ever.. like even better than Beyonce nd Taylor Swift tbh. She sings in Hindi Marathi Gujarati English Japanese Spanish nd even French and she the most beautiful too, haters please upgrade your playlist and your taste lmao https://t.co/FcCGPtHA81
— t. (@d3ddxo) October 22, 2026
Another declared that Amruta Fadnavis was better than Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosle combined, sharing a montage depicting contemporary singers crying while she performed.
Amruta Fadnavis >>>>> Lata Mangeshkar & Asha Bhosle combined. https://t.co/rCDad6wPlF
— Tanu (@Mitanmay2) October 22, 2026
The exaggerated praise was obviously intended as mockery, while also drawing attention to the police investigation and the possibility of legal consequences for online posts targeting the Chief Minister’s wife.
Another user, @Being_humor, took a sarcastic dig at the BJP, suggesting that the party’s political calculations were so elaborate that they had left even its own right-wing (RW) ecosystem scratching its head.
The user came up with a tongue-in-cheek theory that the BJP had devised a “Chanakya-level” masterplan to protect right-wing influencers facing FIRs in opposition-ruled states. Since the party could not directly intervene in those cases, it was allegedly getting FIRs registered against its own influencers in BJP-ruled states instead.
The supposed masterstroke? If police from an opposition-ruled state arrived to arrest an influencer, they would discover that the person was already behind bars in a BJP-ruled state. The courts, according to the user’s sarcastic theory, would then refuse to let the other state’s police take the influencer away.
BJP has played Chanakya-level politics that has left even the RW confused. Many RW influencers are facing FIRs filed against them by opposition-ruled states and are fearing arrest. BJP can’t fight these cases directly, so it filed FIRs against its own RW influencers in BJP-ruled states. That way, if the police from an opposition-ruled state come to arrest these influencers, they will already be in jail in a BJP-ruled state, and even the court will not allow the police from the opposition-ruled state to take them away. Jahan humari soch khatm hoti hai, wahan BJP ki soch shuru hoti hai. 🥹🙏🏻
— maithun (@Being_Humor) October 22, 2026
However, the controversy and ironic tweets in its aftermath, reveal the growing disillusionment among a large section of ‘right-wing’ social media users for the Maharashtra government, resorting to dry, cutting sarcasm to express their disapproval.
Is Maharashtra police being misused to suppress dissent?
The Maharashtra Cyber investigation now raises several questions. What specific content forms the basis of the allegations against each account? Were the identified posts independently unlawful, or did some amount to criticism and satire? Were the reported account suspensions connected to the investigation? And is there evidence to support claims that the poster-slapping videos and online attacks were coordinated?
The police notice establishes that investigators are seeking information from X. It does not establish the guilt of the account holders or prove the existence of a political conspiracy.
The controversy, however, raises a larger question about the use of the police machinery by governments when criticism is directed at those in power or their families. While the authorities are entitled to investigate genuine threats, criminal intimidation and other unlawful content, that power must not become a means of discouraging criticism, satire or political disagreement.
When social media users face FIRs and demands for their personal information over posts mocking a politically influential figure over their remarks, it can create a chilling effect, prompting others to self-censor for fear of police action. The distinction between unlawful conduct and unpalatable criticism must remain clear, regardless of who is being criticised.
