On Thursday, September 24, 2026, the official X account of Bihar Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary posted a photograph that identified a minor girl who had been molested in Jamui earlier that week, along with images of her parents as they approached the chief minister’s official residence in Patna. Within fifteen minutes the post was removed after the CM’s office recognized the breach, but the image had already been captured, shared and downloaded by members of the opposition Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD).
Photo of victim posted and quickly deleted
The Jamui incident occurred on September 19, 2026, when a minor was sexually assaulted. A video of the assault spread on social media on September 21, prompting public outrage. The main accused, Nandan Kumar Yadav, was later injured in a police encounter on September 22, the same day the chief minister addressed the matter at a programme organised by the digital media group First Bihar Jharkhand at the Chandragupta Institute of Management Patna.
During that event, Mr. Choudhary said that the perpetrators might not have been apprehended if they had not recorded the crime on a reel. He argued that the prevalence of short‑form video content is influencing criminal behaviour, stating, “If they had not made the reel, would they have been caught?” The chief minister added that he repeatedly warns criminals not to challenge the police, promising a response within 24 hours.
CM’s comments on reels and criminal activity
Mr. Choudhary’s remarks linked the rapid identification of the Jamui suspects to the existence of a video reel, suggesting that the modern habit of recording incidents can aid law enforcement. He criticised the trend of “people losing their lives in the pursuit of making reels,” and warned that criminals cannot become “heroes of society” by committing offences. The statements were made public during a session that celebrated “Real Heroes” of Bihar, where individuals were recognised for contributions to society.
Ironically, the state had just approved an amendment to the Bihar Social Media and Other Online Media Rules, 2026, on August 19, 2026. The amendment introduced a payment scheme for content creators, offering ₹10,000 for every 100,000 views after a 30‑day performance period, with a ceiling of ₹100,000 per video. The timing of the chief minister’s comments, juxtaposed with the new incentive structure for influencers, amplified the controversy.
Political fallout and opposition criticism
Janata Dal (United) leader and minister Ashok Choudhary attempted to defend the government’s response, asserting that criminal incidents are not unique to Bihar and occur even in developed nations such as the United States and Japan. He emphasised that no head of state can claim a crime‑free nation, but highlighted the swift action taken by the administration.
Opposition leader Tejashwi Yadav, head of the RJD in the Bihar Legislative Assembly, seized upon both the photo leak and the chief minister’s remarks. On X, he posted the blurred image that had been shared from the CM’s account and wrote, “The foolish, inept, anti‑law Chief Minister of Bihar is himself tearing apart the provisions of the POCSO Act. He is exposing the victim’s identity. The Chief Minister of Bihar should receive the harshest possible punishment for this crime; otherwise, who will respect the POCSO Act?” He also criticised Ashok Choudhary’s comparison of Bihar’s crime situation with that of the United States and Japan.
The opposition’s accusations focus on two key points: the alleged violation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act by revealing the victim’s identity, and the perception that the chief minister’s rhetoric encourages a punitive approach that may undermine legal safeguards for minors.
Legal experts, while not quoted in the source, have previously warned that publishing any identifying information about a minor victim of sexual abuse can constitute a breach of the POCSO Act, which mandates strict confidentiality to protect the child’s dignity. The rapid spread of the image on social media platforms, despite its removal, raises questions about the effectiveness of digital safeguards within government communication channels.
In the days following the incident, the Bihar government has not issued a formal apology or clarification regarding the inadvertent disclosure. The opposition’s continued pressure, amplified by social‑media amplification, suggests that the episode could become a focal point in upcoming political debates, especially as the state navigates the balance between encouraging digital content creation and protecting vulnerable individuals.
Overall, the episode underscores the challenges faced by Indian state administrations in managing real‑time communication on social platforms, adhering to child‑protection legislation, and responding to evolving public expectations about transparency and accountability.
Be First to Comment