Senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai has issued an apology, 14 years after his channel aired a sting operation that wrongly accused BJP leader Ajit Singh Tokas of demanding bribes in connection with an unauthorised construction project in Delhi’s Munirka area. The sting, which aired in 2011 under the title “Dilli’s Double Agents”, was part of a joint investigation by IBN7 and Cobra Post.

The 2011 sting and its fallout

The investigative programme, broadcast on November 7 and December 6, 2011, alleged that then-BJP councillor Ajit Singh Tokas had demanded money for permitting unauthorised construction within his ward. The show, hosted by Sardesai, portrayed Tokas as one of several public representatives involved in corrupt practices.

However, a third-party probe later found that Tokas had not demanded any money, and that such practices were not tolerated in his ward. The investigation concluded that the claims made in the sting were unfounded and damaging to the councillor’s reputation.

Sardesai’s apology after 14 years

In his apology, Sardesai acknowledged that the allegations aired on his channel were incorrect. He clarified that his role in the programme had been limited to anchoring the show based on information provided by the investigative team.
“I regret the error that occurred in good faith and apologise to Ajit Singh Tokas for any damage caused to his reputation,” Sardesai said in his statement.

The apology comes more than a decade after the controversy first broke out, raising questions about journalistic accountability and the long-term consequences of media trials.

Background: The ‘Cash for Votes’ sting and political overtones

Sardesai’s apology has revived discussions about another major sting operation from the same period — the Cash for Votes scandal of 2008. During the UPA-I regime, a sting operation conducted by journalists captured evidence of alleged bribery attempts to influence MPs during the trust vote on the Indo-US Nuclear Deal.

The trust vote was necessitated after the Left parties withdrew support from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government on July 9, 2008, over the nuclear agreement with the United States. On July 22, three BJP MPs — Ashok Argal, Faggan Singh Kulaste, and Mahavir Bhagora — entered the Lok Sabha carrying bundles of cash, claiming they had been offered bribes to abstain or vote in favour of the UPA.

Although the sting operation documenting these allegations was partially aired, reports at the time alleged that Sardesai and senior journalist Ashutosh, then heading the Hindi channel, chose to withhold parts of the footage. Critics claimed the decision shielded the UPA government from potential fallout.

Accusations of selective coverage

Former colleagues and media observers have alleged that the decision not to air the full Cash for Votes sting indicated selective editorial judgment. Sardesai’s detractors argue that the journalist, who received the Padma Shri award from the UPA government in 2008, may have faced a conflict of interest in reporting the story in full.

At the time, opposition leaders accused sections of the media of bias and manipulation. The incomplete airing of the sting led to a parliamentary inquiry but failed to produce conclusive outcomes regarding the authenticity of the alleged bribery or the editorial decisions involved.

Renewed debate on media credibility

Sardesai’s belated apology has reopened broader conversations about media ethics, journalistic due diligence, and the handling of politically sensitive investigations. Legal experts say that while the apology is a step toward accountability, it also highlights the power and responsibility of the press in shaping public perception.

“Errors in investigative reporting can have far-reaching implications. Timely verification and accountability are vital to maintaining public trust,” a Delhi-based media law analyst said.

Meanwhile, BJP supporters have called the apology “too little, too late,” demanding that journalists be held legally responsible for misinformation that harms individuals’ reputations. Others in the media fraternity have welcomed the apology, noting that acknowledging mistakes, even belatedly, is a sign of professional integrity.