Ajmer BJP city president Ramesh Soni faces FIR over post targeting Delhi CM
Synopsis
An Ajmer court has ordered an FIR against BJP City President Ramesh Soni for allegedly reposting an objectionable Facebook post targeting the Delhi Chief Minister — a case that spotlights whether resharing offensive content carries the same legal liability as the original upload, and whether political clout can shield public figures from digital-offence laws.
Key Takeaways
An Ajmer court has directed Ganj Police Station to register an FIR against BJP City President Ramesh Soni .
Soni is accused of reposting an objectionable Facebook post targeting the Delhi Chief Minister from his own account.
The original post was uploaded by Piyush Surana , who was already sent to judicial custody for a day.
The FIR is sought under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act .
The complainant alleged police inaction due to Soni 's political influence, prompting the court intervention.
The court cited the Supreme Court 's Lalita Kumari ruling, which mandates FIR registration for cognisable offences.
A court in Ajmer has ordered the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) City President Ramesh Soni for allegedly reposting and sharing an objectionable social media post targeting the Delhi Chief Minister. The order was issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (No. 2), directing the Ganj Police Station to register the case.
How the Case Unfolded
The matter originated from a complaint filed by Shreyans Surana, a resident of Foy Sagar Road, Ajmer. Through his counsel, Advocate Vaibhav Jain, the complainant alleged that the objectionable post was originally uploaded from the Facebook account of his brother, Piyush Surana. Ramesh Soni allegedly reposted and shared the same content from his own Facebook account, amplifying its reach.
According to the complainant, the Ganj Police had earlier registered a case against Piyush Surana and sent him to judicial custody for a day. However, no action was allegedly taken against Soni despite his reposting of the same material. The complaint further alleged that police attempted to suppress the matter owing to Soni's influential position within the party.
Legal Provisions Invoked
The complainant sought directions for registration of an FIR under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Advocate Vaibhav Jain argued before the court that reposting and sharing obscene material constitutes an independent offence under Section 67 of the IT Act.
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh, the advocate contended that registration of an FIR is mandatory whenever a cognisable offence is disclosed. He also submitted that examination of electronic evidence — including URL links, IP logs, and related digital devices — could only be carried out through a formal police investigation.
Court's Direction
After examining the complaint, the police report, and arguments from both sides, the magistrate referred the matter to Ganj Police Station and directed the police to register a case against Ramesh Soni. This comes amid a broader pattern of courts stepping in to ensure FIR registration where police inaction is alleged, particularly in cases involving politically connected individuals.
What Happens Next
With the court's order now in place, the Ganj Police are bound to register the FIR and initiate a formal investigation, including examination of digital evidence. The case is likely to draw attention to the accountability of public figures for social media activity, and whether resharing objectionable content carries the same legal weight as the original post.
Point of View
But for what preceded it: alleged police inaction against a sitting BJP city president while his brother — the original poster — was taken into custody. That asymmetry is precisely what courts have repeatedly flagged in Lalita Kumari-era jurisprudence. The case also raises a live legal question that Indian courts have yet to settle uniformly — whether resharing or reposting objectionable content carries identical liability to the original upload under Section 67 of the IT Act. As political figures increasingly use social media as a campaign tool, this ruling could set a precedent with implications well beyond Rajasthan.
NationPress
5 Aug 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why has an FIR been ordered against BJP city president Ramesh Soni in Ajmer?
An Ajmer court ordered an FIR against Ramesh Soni , BJP City President, for allegedly reposting and sharing an objectionable Facebook post targeting the Delhi Chief Minister. The court acted after the complainant alleged that police took no action against Soni despite registering a case against the original poster.
Under which legal sections is the FIR against Ramesh Soni being registered?
The FIR is being registered under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act , which deals with publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
Who filed the complaint against Ramesh Soni?
Shreyans Surana , a resident of Foy Sagar Road, Ajmer, filed the complaint through his counsel Advocate Vaibhav Jain . He alleged that his brother Piyush Surana originally posted the content, while Soni reposted it without facing any police action.
What is the significance of the Lalita Kumari judgment cited in this case?
The Supreme Court 's ruling in Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh mandates that police must register an FIR whenever a cognisable offence is disclosed in a complaint. The complainant's counsel used this precedent to argue that the Ganj Police had no discretion to withhold registration against Soni.
What happens next in the Ajmer BJP president FIR case?
With the magistrate's order in place, Ganj Police Station is now required to register the FIR and conduct a formal investigation, including examination of digital evidence such as URL links and IP logs linked to the Facebook posts.
