The Election Commission of India (ECI) had forwarded a detailed report of confirmed cases of paid news and supporting documents related to electronic media [India News Rajasthan, First India TV and News18 Rajasthan] w.r.t. to General Election to Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan, 2023 (of Jaipur City and Nagaur) as received from the CEO, Rajasthan for further necessary action to NBDSA.

NBDSA vide email dated 24.02.2025 informed the ECI that India News Rajasthan and First India TV were not Members of NBDA, hence NBDSA would not be able to consider the report vis-à-vis the said channels. However, NBDSA took up the matter relating to News18 Rajasthan, which is a Member of NBDA.
Paid news Case No 04 Rewant Ram Danga (BJP ) Khinwsar NEWS 18: 19/11/2023 :10.49 PM The election of Khinwsar assembly has become completely exciting. In Khinwsar Rajput society revealed support to BJP candidate Rewant Ram Danga. Rajput society organised the Rajput meditation Camp in Khinwsar Fort and express their full support in the favour of BJP candidate Rewant Ram Danga

Response dated 10.03.2025 from the broadcaster
The broadcaster stated that it had carefully reviewed the letter of the ECI and the annexed chart, which referenced a news story purportedly telecast by its channel, News18 Rajasthan on 21.11.2023 regarding Shri Rewant Ram Danga, BJP candidate from Nagaur, Rajasthan (“News Story”). The chart annexed to the letter of the ECI appeared to suggest that the channel, News18 Rajasthan, had charged an amount of Rs. 7000 /- for telecasting this news story, which suggestion is categorically denied. This news story was not paid news and not a single rupee was ever paid by anyone or received by it for telecasting this news. The news story was part of its routine election coverage, focusing on a significant political event. Shri Rewant Ram Danga was receiving support from the Rajput community – a development that had the potential to significantly impact the electoral contest in the constituency, especially given that the key candidates belonged to the same community. Given its electoral and public significance, this news was covered by multiple media outlets including its channel, News18 Rajasthan. Further, during the same period, the channel, News18 Rajasthan, had also covered election-related developments concerning candidates from other political parties and communities, ensuring fair and balanced reporting. It is reiterated that the news story was not paid news, and no money was ever paid or received for the same. Consequently, there was no violation of the Code of Conduct, the Norms and Guidelines on Paid News dated 24.11.2011 or of any other applicable code, law, rules, regulations or directions.

5.6.2025
On examination of the report of ECI, NBDSA found that the findings of the Media Certification and Monitoring Committee were given without giving the broadcaster an opportunity to be heard, nor was the broadcaster given an opportunity to give any response. In view of this, NBDSA decided to consider independently whether there were any violations of its Guidelines relating to election broadcasts and paid news. In the absence of any direct evidence of any payment of consideration to the broadcaster and the specific denials by the broadcaster that the telecasts were not for consideration, NBDSA was of the view that it was not possible to hold that there was any violation of its Norms and Guidelines on Paid News.

23.08.2024
The complaint pertained to an alleged fake and misleading news broadcast in relation to the Kolkata RG Kar rape and murder incident. In the report the reporter stated “The Kolkata rape and murder story has gotten a lot more murkier with a gangrape angle that’s now coming to fore. The autopsy report of that victim shows that there was nearly 150mg of semen found in her vagina”. It may be noted that the autopsy report of the victim is confidential and not a public document. The reporter referred to a non-public document as the source of her claim which was found to be fake .Later in the video, the reporter also said "...I've seen it myself". and also alleged that the RG Kar Hospital case was a gangrape. It is stated that the claims put forth by the reporter were debunked by Kolkata Police as being fake. On 22/08/2024, even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, during a proceeding in the said case, rebuked a counsel who made the "150 mg of semen found in the vagina" claim and categorically stated that it was untrue. Despite the claim made having been proven to be false beyond doubt, there neither an apology was tendered by her nor was the said video deleted.

Response dated 09.08.2024 of the Broadcaster
The complaint is not maintainable as no specific violation being made out against the impugned broadcast or the channel have been alleged. The video clip uploaded on your official X handle was an edited and morphed footage. The contents of the original footage were tampered and used out of context to change the tone and tenor of the impugned broadcast. The impugned broadcast was primarily focused on the question of whether there was a possibility that the victim was gangraped. In that context, it contained a reportage of the claims made by the parents of the victim and observations of the doctors analysing the autopsy report of the victim, inter alia claiming that 150 mg of semen was found in the private parts of the victim, her legs were completely broken, her eyes were bleeding and she was throttled to death - and that the medical evidence points towards possible gang rape of the victim. These reports surfaced after the father of the victim, through his lawyers, pleaded before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court that there was a suspicion of commission of the offence of gang rape against his daughter. The same was also recorded by the Hon'ble High Court in its order date 13.08.2024. After the said proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court, one Dr. Subarna Goswami, a doctor from Kolkata and the Additional Secretary of the All-India Federation of Govt. Doctors' Association, went on record and claimed to have accessed the autopsy report of the victim. Further, one Dr. Raja Dhar, who is the Director and HOD, Pulmonology in CK Birla Hospital, Kolkata also gave an interview to its reporter and reaffirmed the high probability of commission of gang rape against the victim due to the nature of injuries found on her body. Consequently, the Impugned Broadcast, while referring to the reportage as a "gang rape angle that has come to the fore'' (at 00:04 - 00:06 of the Impugned Broadcast), relied on the abovementioned reports, the statements of the doctors (who had reportedly seen/been shown the autopsy report by the parents), as well as the arguments made by the parents of the victim. It is in discharge of its bounden duty that the channel published the Impugned Broadcast, that relayed concerns about the commission of such a gruesome crime.

5.6.2025
As the complainant did not attend the hearing, NBDSA has consigned the matter to records, with liberty to reagitate the issue in future, should the complainant so desire.

27.09.2024
According to the Odisha Police, Mahalaxmi was murdered by Mukti Rajan Pratap Roy However, the broadcaster declared Ashraf as the criminal. This violated NBDSA's Code of Ethics and Guidelines related to Accuracy and Defamatory Content, Law & Order, Crime & Violence.

Reply dated 7.10.2024 by the broadcaster
The complaint concerned a news report published by it on 24.09.2024 on the murder of Mahalaxmi in Bengaluru. When the story related to the murder first broke, it was noted that the police had detained several individuals for investigation. However, Mahalaxmi's husband, Hemant, in his statement had suggested that Ashraf could potentially be the killer, and there was intensive questioning of Ashraf as well. The news report on this incident amply emphasized the uncertainty surrounding the situation, as the police and family were all speculating about the main suspect. Nowhere had it definitively stated that Ashraf is the killer; instead, it had mentioned in the script that a police investigation is ongoing.
In the narrative, both the police's perspective and the Minister's viewpoint were presented. Additionally, the reporter's ground report on this story highlighted that the police were investigating more than five individuals, any of whom could potentially be the main suspect. The story refrained from making any judgments or providing direct statements about who the killer might be.

9.5.2025
The impugned broadcast was primarily a factual news report pertaining to the Mahalakshmi murder case from Bengaluru. This was evident from the broadcaster's emphasis on the ongoing nature of the police investigation in the case. Further, in the broadcast, the police's perspective and the minister's viewpoint were both aired. The ground report also emphasized that the police were investigating more than five individuals, any of whom could be potential suspects. There was no judgment made in the broadcast pronouncing the accused as being guilty, as the term “alleged” had been used. Keeping in mind the factual nature of the report, NBDSA found no violation of the Code of Conduct in the broadcast. However, it was of the view that the broadcaster could have exercised greater discretion while selecting the title of the broadcast, which was “Bengaluru ??? ??? Mahalaxmi Murder ??? Ashraf ?? Fridge ???? ???????? ????? ???? ??!”. Though it comes within the journalistic freedom to choose the title and it can also be understood that keeping in view the gory nature of murder, the title was selected, however mentioning the name of Ashraf in the title who was, at that time, only one of the accused persons was objectionable as it gave the impression as if Ashraf was held guilty by the Court of law. Inclusion of his name in the title, therefore, was inconsistent with the factual nature of the broadcast. NBDSA decided to direct the broadcaster to remove/edit the title of the impugned broadcast.

The complaints were in respect of a broadcast titled “Bengaluru ??? Shraddha Walkar ???? Murder! ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????”.

Complaint filed by Mr. Indrajeet Ghorpade The complaint was escalated to the second level of grievance redressal, i.e., NBDSA as he was not satisfied with the response..

Complaint dated 27.09.2024
A 31-year-old man, Mukti Rajan Pratap Roy's brother had told Odisha Police that Mukti Rajan had confessed to killing Mahalakshmi. Mukti Rajan allegedly died by suicide and the Police recovered a suicide note in which he allegedly confessed to the crime.

Violations by News18 India:
The broadcaster declared Ashraf as the murderer. While the anchor, mentioned that these were accusations by Mahalakshmi's family (which is incorrect, as these were suspicious by her estranged husband only), the headlines, tickers and thumbnails projected Ashraf as guilty. Further, not only were images of Shraddha Walkar and her killer Aftab Poonawala's repeatedly shown in violation of her right to dignity but the tickers and anchor repeatedly got her name wrong. The report violated NBDSA's Code and Guidelines.

Complaint filed by Mr. Gulroz Shaikh dated 8.10.2024
The broadcast and anchor tried to sensationalise a sad incident. The news team selectively picked a certain unfortunate crime from the past with allegedly some 'Muslim names' and related it to the sad crime of the 'Mahalakshmi murder' case. Where, in fact, the alleged criminal later turned out to be a non-Muslim, which was not unbiased and impartial reporting.

Reply dated 08.10.2024 by the broadcaster
The broadcaster in its response stated that the report informed that Mahalakshmi’s family had accused a man named Ashraf of killing her. Ashraf was Mahalakshmi’s close friend and according to the family, she was living separately from her husband due to her alleged relations with Ashraf. On questioning by a media person of any suspect who could be behind this killing, her husband named a person by the name of Ashraf, who he claimed had an illicit affair with Mahalakshmi, and that he had killed Mahalakshmi.
The Report mentioned the Shraddha Walkar murder case for the resemblance it bears with Mahalakshmi’s murder in terms of brutality and the method of disposing of the body. In both cases, the victims’ bodies were chopped down into pieces and stored in the refrigerator. The Report did not make any reference to any religion, be it of the victims or the accused, anywhere. As the investigation proceeded and a man named Mukti Ranjan Roy turned out to be the culprit in the Mahalakshmi case, the same was reported in a similar manner as previous developments. There was no malicious intent to paint any religion in a negative light.
A reference was made to Shraddha’s alleged killer Aftab to ask how many cruel people are still there in society with the same criminal mindset as Aftab. The purpose of comparison was nothing but to reveal the cruelty involved in both matters and the mindset of people who commit such crimes.
All images used in the report were in the public domain in relation to these cases, including the images of Shraddha Walkar and Aftab Poonawala.In no manner, were they intended to hurt the dignity of the victim. The broadcast was conducted in strict adherence to all relevant rules, regulations, guidelines, and applicable laws.

9.5.2025
The impugned broadcast was largely a factual news report pertaining to the Mahalakshmi murder case from Bengaluru. Consistent with the Code of Conduct, the anchor had explicitly clarified that it was the family members of the deceased who had accused one Ashraf of being responsible for the murder. Further, the subsequent clarification of the police was also aired in the broadcast. So far as these aspects of the broadcast were concerned, NBDSA was of the view that no objection could be raised to the broadcast. It is also a matter of record that this murder had created a lot of sensation and media attention, therefore there could not be an objection to airing such a programme. However, NBDSA noted that the accompanying tickers and headlines running alongside the programme such as, “Ashraf ne Mahalakshmi ke 50 tukde kiye?” and “Mahalakshmi ke 50 tukde kiye .. Aur kitne Aftab?”, conveyed a different impression to the viewers contrary to the factual nature of the broadcast and these should have been avoided while reporting the aforesaid murder case. NBDSA decided to advise the broadcaster to be more careful in using such kind of tickers, while broadcasting the programmes, as the use of these tickers tend to create distortion to the otherwise unobjectionable programmes. NBDSA directs the broadcaster to take down the tickers from the broadcasts.

The complaint was escalated to the second level of grievance redressal, i.e., NBDSA as he was not satisfied with the response.

17.10.2024
The complainant stated that on 16.10.2024, a prime-time episode was organized on an unfortunate and sad incident in Bahraich. The anchor made a gore description on his show, which was later proved to be fake. The complainant questioned on what basis such news was organized.

On every crime and incident, such fake news is organized to incite and stir public emotions. He questioned whether the news channel and the anchor should have refrained from making such comments and proceeded with caution, and that too when it is fake news, as confirmed by Bahraich police and post-mortem.

Response dated 6.11.2024 of the broadcaster
The broadcaster stated that regarding the concern raised, it wished to clarify that it had removed the alleged broadcast from the public domain without any prejudice to its right to re-publish the same if, on verification, the complainant’s claims are found to be untrue or in the event of any development in the story.

Complaint dated 6.11.2024 to NBDSA
The broadcaster had responded by stating that they had removed the content (which they still haven't, at the time of escalating the complaint.) The complainant questioned, that even if the broadcaster had removed the news from the background, how was the same justifiable without any apology. A background deletion of content after the broadcast of fake news is not the right way; when millions of people see that news, the only right way is an apology for the same news on a similar prime time.

28.1.2025
The broadcaster in its response had stated that the impugned broadcast was removed from the public domain, however, the complainant in its response had pointed out that the broadcast continued to be available on various social media sites. NBDSA decided to direct the broadcaster to remove the impugned broadcast, if available from all social media platforms within 3 days from the receipt of the decision and inform NBDSA accordingly, or else NBDSA may be compelled to levy penalties on the broadcaster in view of the statement made above.

Since the complainant was not satisfied with the response received from the broadcaster, the complaint on 4.10.2024 was escalated to the second level of grievance redressal, i.e., NBDSA.

21.09.2024 The complainant questioned the broadcaster as to why it was spreading fake news that animal fat in Tirupati Balaji temple Prasadam Laddu is a Congress Party conspiracy. This claim was violative of principles of accuracy, objectivity, neutrality and fairness.

Response dated 3.10.2024 by the broadcaster
The impugned programme was a discussion on the channel with Swami Dipankar (“Swamiji”) wherein several questions were posed by the anchor to Swamiji. During the interview, Swamiji responded to these inquiries and shared his insights. Amongst various other responses, he also expressed the view that the Indian National Congress Party bore some responsibility for the controversy surrounding the Prasadam Laddu. The responses and statements were made independently without the channel's or anchor's endorsement or influence. In fact, during the interview, the anchor frequently questioned Swamiji why the current administration and trust members should not be held accountable for the situation, given that allegations of ghee adulteration have been raised on multiple occasions in the past. The anchor was completely neutral and non-partisan in conducting the interview and, in the interest of balanced and fair reporting, actively challenged statements regarding the Congress party's responsibility for the issue at hand. It reiterated that the channel did not support or endorse the views expressed by Swamiji and had, therefore, without prejudice to its rights and contentions and without admitting any of the allegations made in the complaint, all of which are firmly denied taken down the interview from its portal/channel. This had been done in the hope that the complainant would treat the matter as closed.

28.1.2025
Upon review of the footage of the impugned broadcast, NBDSA observed a discrepancy. While the title of the impugned broadcast “Tirupati Laddu Animal Fat Row : Tirupati ?? ?????? ??? ???, Congress ?? ??? ???????? .....” had been revised to “Tirupati Laddu Animal Fat Row : Tirupati ?? ?????? ??? ???, ???? ???? ?????? ???????? | N18V” as stated by the broadcaster in its response, the broadcast itself had not been revised, as the anchor could be seen questioning the interviewee as to whether the adulteration in the Prasadam Laddu was a conspiracy against the Hindus. While the anchor had raised questions concerning the responsibility of the current administration and trust members, the overall tone of the broadcast seemed to be less about seeking accountability for the ghee adulteration; instead, the broadcast provided the interviewee with a platform to expound his views on the Sanatan Dharma, which was a deviation from the intended subject for the interview.

02.08.2024
The complaint concerned an article which falsely stated that the Algerian boxer Imane Khelif is a man. The article also linked several tweets from known transphobic people and organisations falsely stating that she is a man. By stating that she is a man, the article had spread misinformation, anti transgender narrative and put Khelif’s safety at risk because transgender individuals face harassment, discrimination, and violence due to their gender identity in Algeria. The article violated the Code of Ethics, specifically the principles relating to accuracy and the guidelines related to reporting on LGBTQIA+ issues. The complainant requested the broadcaster to delete the article and post a clarification immediately.

28.1.2025
NBDSA was unable to access the link of the article impugned in the complaint, which seems to have been removed. In view of the same, NBDSA decided to direct the Member to bear in mind the Specific Guidelines for Reportage on Issues concerning the LGBTQIA+ Community while reporting on any subject concerning the LGBTQIA+ community.

24.07.2024
Since the complainant was not satisfied with the response received from India TV, TVTN and News 24 and also did not receive a reply from ABP, TV18, Zee News and NDTV, the complainant on 19.07.2024, escalated the complaint to the second level of grievance redressal, i.e., NBDSA.
The complaint concerned articles related to Elon Musk’s commentary on gender-affirming care and his estranged transgender daughter. These articles violated one or more NBDSA Guidelines and Code of Ethics. The complainant stated that the news articles violated Guidelines a, b, c and d of Specific Guidelines for Reportage on Issues concerning the LGBTQIA+ Community, Guideline a, b and c of Guidelines for Prevention of Hate Speech and Principles of Impartiality, Neutrality and Fairness under the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards and Specific Guidelines Covering Reportage.

Response dated 31.07.2024 by India TV
The broadcaster stated that the complaint was unfounded and devoid of any merit. Its news article fully complied with the guidelines and Code of Ethics. The article merely reported the statements made by Elon Musk without endorsing them. It accurately reported factual information and a newsworthy event while maintaining neutrality and avoiding bias against any person, gender or community. The article did not promote or perpetuate harmful stereotypes as alleged. It is expressly denied that the article deadnamed and/or misgendered Vivian Jenna Wilson, as it merely reported the statements made by Elon Musk without endorsing them. It also denied that the article amplified anti-trans commentary. The article reported Musk's statements ‘as is’ without promoting, supporting or endorsing them. Its focus was on factual reporting without expressing personal opinions.

Response dated 14.08.2024 by TV Today Network
The impugned articles contained a reportage of the comments made by Elon Musk during an interview, which was originally published by the Daily Mail. Notably, the articles merely provided relevant excerpts from Elon Musk's interview, who was expressing his personal views. Elon Musk is an influential businessman and his comments merit reportage. The complaint was proceeding on the incorrect assumption that reportage equates to endorsement. The impugned articles made no commentary and/ or expressed any views on the statements made by Elon Musk and merely reproduced his statements made during the interview. All comments and expressions added in the impugned articles were the views of Elon Musk and not the India Today Group. In fact, there was no additional commentary in the impugned articles supporting the views of Elon Musk that would give the complainant or its other readers an impression that the broadcaster was propagating or endorsing the views of Elon Musk. Further, it is denied that any portion of the impugned articles had violated any provisions of the NBDSA guidelines. The impugned articles were not editorial pieces but merely a news report on the statements made by Elon Musk during his interview. No comments were made by it with respect to his views. None of the allegations made were sustainable since it had not expressed any views or issues concerning the LGBTQIA+ community. The purpose of the impugned articles was to report the comments made by a global personality on a socially sensitive issue. The impugned articles did not in any manner either glorify, diminish or trivialise the struggles of the LGBTQIA+ community or knowingly or intentionally distort/ misrepresent any information.

Response dated 27.08.2024 by News24
The broadcaster stated that the article regarding Elon Musk's comments about his daughter and her decision to change her gender was published on its website, and was intended to inform the readers about the situation and provide context around Mr. Musk's remarks. The article solely reported the statements made by Mr. Musk, which have already been a topic of public interest. As a media house, its primary responsibility is to inform the public about significant events and statements, particularly when they involve prominent figures like Mr. Musk. It understands that the subject matter is highly sensitive and approaches such topics with care and consideration. Its intention was not to offend or cause distress but to provide accurate and timely reporting. It had adhered to journalistic guidelines and ethics in presenting the information to its readers.

Complaint dated 19.08.2024 to NBDSA
India TV
The complainant stated that he disagreed with the claims made by the channel. By publishing Elon Musk's quotes as it is, the article misgendered and deadnamed Elon Musk's transgender daughter. Furthermore, the channel had not only "merely quoted" Musk but had also stated that gender-affirming care amounted to child abuse as per "critics". The channel had taken a one-sided stand and failed to interview transgender persons, medical professionals, and experts in gender studies, particularly studies about transgender persons and transgender health. The article repeatedly used words like 'woke mind virus' and 'greatest threats to modern civilisation' in the context of gender-affirming care. Elon Musk's commentary was unscientific, biased, and against the wellbeing and welfare of transgender youth, and the channel had been instrumental in amplifying this commentary and promoting transphobia.

India Today
The broadcaster in its response had denied the violations and stated that all comments in the articles were the views of Elon Musk and not of the India Today Group. However, it must be noted that Elon Musk's commentary was unscientific, untruthful, biased and against the wellbeing and welfare of transgender youth, including his biological child, who is a transgender person, whom he deadnamed and misgendered and vowed to "destroy the woke mind virus", referring to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. The broadcaster quoted Musk's harmful commentary as it is and was therefore instrumental in amplifying his transphobic views and thereby promoting transphobia amongst readers. Further, such transphobic articles not only "displease" a fraction of society but also endanger their lives. While the broadcaster acknowledges its duty to publish diverse opinions, it fails to include opinions of transgender persons, medical professionals, and experts in gender studies, particularly studies about transgender persons and transgender health. Thereby making the articles one-sided amplification platforms for transphobia.

News24
The headlines and the contents of the article did not demonstrate sensitivity and care. Elon Musk's commentary was unscientific, untruthful, biased and against the wellbeing and welfare of transgender youth, including his biological child, who is a transgender person, whom he deadnamed and misgendered and vowed to "destroy the woke mind virus", referring to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. The broadcaster quoted Musk's harmful commentary as it is and had therefore been instrumental in amplifying his transphobic views and thereby promoting transphobia amongst readers. The broadcaster failed to include opinions of transgender persons, medical professionals, and experts in gender studies, particularly studies about transgender persons and transgender health. Thereby making the articles one-sided amplification opportunities for transphobia.

28.1.2025
The articles and the broadcasts on the channels were essentially a report of the statement made by Mr. Elon Musk. To provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issue, it would have been beneficial if the articles and the broadcast had also reported on the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community and borne in mind the Specific Guidelines for Reportage on issues concerning the LGBTQIA+ Community while reporting on any subject.

18.06.2024
The complainant was not satisfied with the response received for the reasons given. Hence, he requested that his complaint be escalated In the impugned show statistics related to train derailment was wrongly associated with the UPA government. In 2000-2001, it was the NDA government, not the UPA, that was in power. This error violated the Code of Ethics, particularly principles relating to Accuracy, and raised questions about neutrality and bias. The complainant questioned what measures the broadcaster would take to correct this misinformation. The broadcaster was also requested to share the source of data for the other number shared on the show.

Reply dated 2.07.2024 from the broadcaster
1. The impugned broadcast was a news segment, where its anchor was reporting on the tragic collision between the Kanchanjungha Express, a passenger train, and a goods train, near New Jalpaiguri Railway Station, West Bengal on Monday, 17.06.2024. The impugned broadcast aimed at providing an astute and informed analysis of railway accidents that occurred during the ten-year tenure of two different government regimes. As a preliminary submission, the reporting in the impugned broadcast was based on government figures available on the website of the Press Information Bureau at different points in time. Therefore, any assertion that the impugned broadcast is based on inaccurate information is unfounded.
i. As mentioned by the reporter at 0:43-0:45, information in the impugned broadcast was based on the data provided by the Press Information Bureau.
ii. The reporter at 0:33 to 0:43 stated that train derailment incidents have seen a steep decline in number, i.e., from 350 in 2000-2001 to 36 in 2022-2023 as follows: "Rail ke patri se uttarne ki ghatnaon ki sankhya mein badi girawat dikhi gayi; 2000-2001 mein 350 se ghatkar 2022-23 mein 36 ho gayi." It is apparent from the impugned broadcast and the aforesaid statement that the reporter had nowhere stated that it was the UPA government that was responsible or in power at the time of the said 350 train derailments in 2000-2001. In fact, the reporter had mentioned only the number of incidents in the 2 years i.e., 2000-2001 and 2022-2023, and had neither mentioned the name of the NDA government nor the UPA government. Therefore, there is no question of the reporter wrongly associating statistics related to train derailment with the UPA government during 2000-2001. Any suggestion in the impugned broadcast that contradicted this understanding is inadvertent and unintended.
2. The sole intent of the impugned broadcast was also aimed at analysing railway accidents that occurred during the 10-year tenure of two different government regimes.
3. It reiterated that all principles pertaining to accuracy and neutrality in the Code of Ethics have been observed in spirit and letter, and it had in no manner broadcasted content that was malicious, biased, regressive, knowingly inaccurate, hurtful, misleading, or aimed at wilfully concealing a conflict of interest.

28.1.2025
NBDSA upon perusing the contents of the complaint, found that while the anchor had not mentioned the names of the Governments in the years mentioned, however the graphic inaccurately mentioned UPA in 2000-2001. In view of the same, NBDSA directed the broadcaster to edit the graphics in the broadcast within 7 days from the receipt of the decision and inform the NBDSA accordingly.

23.01.2024
The complaint concerned an article titled "Ajmer: ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? DM ?? ?? ????, 3 ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???????? " published on NDTV Rajasthan, which appears to contravene journalistic ethics and legal boundaries in several ways. The article prematurely declares a phone hacking incident as a fact, despite the matter being sub judice. The article suggests motives without presenting concrete evidence, which is speculative and could be considered defamatory. It further mentions unverified allegation of threat and mentions that details like "CDR ??? ??? ????," implying the reporter had access to confidential Call Detail Records (CDR) and investigation documents. The complainant stated that accessing such sensitive information without authorization is a serious breach of privacy and legal protocols. It raises questions about the methods used to obtain this information and the legality of such actions. The reporting in the article appears to contravene the principles of fair and responsible journalism. It potentially violates the right to privacy and the presumption of innocence, fundamental tenets of our legal system and democratic society. Given these serious concerns, the complainant urged NDTV Rajasthan to conduct a comprehensive review of this article and take necessary corrective action.

14.3.2024
NBDSA considered the application dated 10.02.2024 filed by the complainant seeking condonation of delay at the first level of redressal i.e., at the time of filing the complaint with the broadcaster under Regulation 8.1.6 of the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Regulations (Regulations). NBDSA decided to reiterate to the complainant that under Proviso 1 & 2 to Regulation 8.1.6 of the Regulations, no power is vested with it to condone the delay in filing of a complaint with the broadcaster, which is beyond the period of 7 days from the date of broadcast. Further, since the complainant had filed the application seeking condonation of delay under Proviso 1 to Regulation 8.2, NBDSA decided to clarify that Proviso 1 to Regulation 8.2, can be exercised by the Authority only to condone the delay at the second level of redressal i.e., at the time of escalating the complaint to NBDSA and not at the first level of redressal. In view of the above, since the delay of 67 days was at the first level of redressal, NBDSA held that it has no alternative but to dismiss the complaint as being barred by limitation under Regulation 8.1.6. NBDSA decided to close the complaint with the aforesaid observations and inform the complainant and the broadcaster accordingly.