₹7 Lakh, 7 Seconds of Fame: When Headlines Hurt More Than Crime
In an era where narratives often outpace nuance, the recent news cycle surrounding EaseMyTrip CEO Nishant Pitti offers a textbook case of how selective framing can distort public perception long before any truth is established.
For several days now, major outlets have carried headlines Nishant Pitti in the Mahadev betting app probe, echoing claims that include a cash seizure of ₹7 lakh and alleged connections to entities under investigation. But behind the noise lies a more sobering truth: the facts, as they stand, don’t justify the frenzy.
The ₹7 Lakh Headline: Drama Without Depth
Let’s begin with the most repeated line in the coverage — that ₹7 lakh was “recovered” from Pitti’s residence. The figure has been paraded in bold font and primetime debate panels with an almost cinematic flourish.
But context matters.
This was a household with eight working, tax-paying adults, and the family had already disclosed over ₹70 lakh in household cash reserves in their tax filings. To imply criminality over ₹7 lakh — in a country where cash is still a common mode of household contingency — is not just disingenuous, it borders on farcical.
In any other setting, it would be an afterthought. Here, it became the headline.
No Charges, No Links — Still, Guilt by Association
So far, there are no formal charges against Nishant Pitti. The primary allegation appears to be that two entities — now reportedly under ED scrutiny — had, years ago, purchased shares in EaseMyTrip through the open market and received dividend payouts like any other shareholder.
No direct business ties. No evidence of communication. Just shareholding — the very purpose of a public listing.
Yet the framing in several media stories walks a razor-thin line between fact and insinuation, often glossing over the most basic distinctions. A name in a report becomes presumed guilt. And in the age of virality, nuance is the first casualty.
A Pattern of Convenient Targets?
There’s a growing concern in India’s entrepreneurial community about the pattern of soft-targeting successful individuals, especially those with high visibility and independent clout. Once a name is associated — however loosely — with a high-profile investigation, the media machinery can spin a full-blown scandal, even in the absence of concrete links.
And when unverified documents or leaks make it to airwaves before courtrooms, the damage is done, regardless of the final outcome.
The Role of Media: Inform or Inflame?
This is not a defence of any alleged crime. If there is evidence, let due process take its course. But what we’re seeing is not due process — it’s trial by press release.
When facts are wrapped in hyperbole and served without context, public trust suffers. Not just in the person being accused, but in the credibility of the institutions investigating them — and in the media reporting on them.
Cash in a house. Dividends on public shares. A name in a report. None of these are crimes in themselves. But the insinuations built around them can ruin reputations, unsettle companies, and undermine confidence in entrepreneurship itself.
Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale in the Age of Clicks
Until there is substantive proof, Nishant Pitti remains just that — a name mentioned in an ongoing probe, with no charges filed. His cooperation with authorities has been open, and his public statement clear.
But even if the case closes tomorrow, the question will linger: Was this about justice — or a headline?
Because when ₹7 lakh becomes a national talking point, we should ask whether we’re chasing truth — or just the next convenient villain.
By Rohan Malhotra | New Delhi