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.

8.11.2023
The complainant stated that on 05.09.2023, Zee Kannada had broadcast a false and malicious news claiming that I, as a Minister in the Government of Karnataka, stated that farmers were committing suicide to receive compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 from the government. The news broadcast was nothing but false and malicious, and created as I never gave such statement.

14.3.2024
In respect of the complaint dated 8.11.2023 against Zee Kannada news channel, NBDSA observed that there was a delay of 7 days at the first level of redressal, i.e., at the time of filing the complaint with the broadcaster, as the impugned news item was broadcast on 05.09.2023 (date of broadcast) and the complaint was filed on 19.09.2023 (date of initial complaint to the broadcaster) i.e., beyond the period permitted under the Regulations. NBDSA therefore decided to draw the attention of the complainant to Proviso to Regulation 8.1.6 of the Regulations, which prescribes the procedure for Redressing the Complaint at the first level of grievance redressal. NBDSA held that since the complaint was filed beyond the period of seven days from the date of the first broadcast/publication as prescribed under Regulation 8.1.6, the complaint was barred by limitation and cannot be considered on merits. In view of the above, NBDSA held that it has no alternative but to dismiss the complaint as being barred by limitation under Regulation 8.1.6. NBDSA accordingly decided to close the complaint with the aforesaid observations and inform the complainant and the broadcaster accordingly.

This complaint was against the failure of the broadcaster to report a critical fact of the incident, which took place on 31st July, on the Jaipur-Mumbai Central Superfast Express, wherein Constable Chetan Singh, 33, shot dead his senior, Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Tikaram Meena (57), before methodologically shooting 3 Muslim passengers sitting further ahead. In a video, shot by fellow passengers, Singh, standing next to a body, is purportedly heard saying: “... Pakistan se operate hue ye, aur media yehi coverage dikha rahi hai, unko sab pata chal raha hai ye kya kar rahe hain... Agar vote dena hai, agar Hindustan mein rehna hai to mai kehta hoon Modi aur Yogi, ye do hain.” However, the officials said they were checking the authenticity of the video. In its broadcasts on the aforesaid incident, the statements made by constable Chetan Singh after the shooting have not been reported by the broadcaster. This omission of a crucial fact that informs the viewers beliefs regarding the motives of the crime, which prima facie seem clearly motivated by Islamophobic intent, amounted to a violation of the right to information of the viewer. The omission amounted to a violation of objectivity as well as other guidelines of NBDSA. Despite the fact that multiple varied speculations regarding intent have been provided as an explanation for why the crime was committed, the facet that demonstrated prima facie intent that would allow the viewer to form an objective opinion based on the facts available in the public domain was not reported. The coverage gave undue prominence to the statements made by the state that the violence was inspired by mental illness. Even if that is so, the acts of the accused in methodically seeking out 3 Muslim passengers to shoot, prima facie demonstrates communal intent, irrespective of him being in his senses or not. The coverage must be judged in light of the manner in which law and order issues that prima facie demonstrate communal intention of the accused have been covered on the channel. A communal bias is clearly borne out by the manner in which the ongoing communal riots within Mewat have been covered to ascribe mala fide intent upon the Muslim community on the basis of unverified videos.

6.11.2023
NBDSA considered the application seeking condonation of delay filed by the complainant under Proviso 1 to Regulation 8.2 of the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Regulations and the response received thereof from the broadcaster. NBDSA observed that since the complainant had failed to show that he had acted diligently and/or that the delay in filing the complaint had been caused for reasons not of the complainant’s making and/or for other sufficient cause, NBDSA could not condone the delay of 20 days on the part of the complainant in escalating the complaint to the Authority. NBDSA accordingly rejected the application seeking condonation of delay and decided to dismiss the above complaint on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation permitted under the Regulations. NBDSA decided to inform the complainant and the broadcaster accordingly.

4.7.2023
In the impugned broadcast, the anchor discussed the question of the disenfranchisement of minorities in India. He used a singular incident of the welcome given to the 2008 blasts terror accused Abdul Nasar Madani at his home, to claim that the issue of the disenfranchisement of minorities is false. Madani, an accused was repeatedly referred to as a terrorist. The anchor claimed that the newly elected Karnataka Government was spending lacs of rupees on his security while the former Karnataka BJP Government had said that Madani would have to bear the expense of his security when he was granted permission to visit his home state by the Supreme Court. Madani had said that he would not give the money and asked the government to give some relaxation. That the newly elected Congress Government had given many relaxations to Madani. Madani while speaking to PTI news agency in Bengaluru before leaving for Kerala had said that the total amount to be deposited with the Karnataka Police department for his police escort would be finalized only after his visit ends. At least 12 policemen from the Karnataka Police department were escorting Madani for his safety and security and the Court had directed him to bear all their expenses for the trip. The Court’s involvement in this matter had been entirely omitted, and accountability was affixed on the change in the government in Karnataka for alleged concession being given to Madani. The claim made by the anchor regarding the relaxation being given by the Congress government was false. The repeated omissions of the broadcaster to place on record facts which inform beliefs regarding the disenfranchisement of minorities in the country, while selectively reporting news to hinder that belief violates objectivity and neutrality.

6.11.2023
NBDSA considered the application seeking condonation of delay filed by the complainant under Proviso 1 to Regulation 8.2 of the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Regulations and the response received thereof from the broadcaster. NBDSA observed that since the complainant had failed to show that he had acted diligently and/or that the delay in filing the complaint had been caused for reasons not of the complainant’s making and/or for other sufficient cause, NBDSA could not condone the delay of 15 days on the part of the complainant in escalating the complaint to the Authority. NBDSA accordingly rejected the application seeking condonation of delay and decided to dismiss the above complaint on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation permitted under the Regulations. NBDSA decided to inform the complainant and the broadcaster accordingly.

17.08.2023
The complaint related to a programme titled “JU Student Death : ????????? Swapnadeep ?? ???? ? Sourav ?? ??, ?? ????? ????? | Bangla News Translation: JU Student Death: Face to face Swapnadeep's father and Sourav's mother, what did they say? | Bangla News”. In the impugned programme, the broadcaster had pitted the father of a deceased student of Jadavpur University against the mother of a former student of Jadavpur University who had been arrested for allegedly bullying the deceased. The programme did not provide the viewers any new information that was not already broadcast by it and other channels related to this case. Instead, the broadcaster exploited the grieving father and mother for TRP.

6.11.2023
NBDSA considered the complaint, response of the broadcaster and viewed the footage of the programme. NBDSA noted that both the parents (deceased and accused) had approached the broadcaster to present their version of the incident. NBDSA was of the view that ragging in educational institutions and the consequences thereof is a matter of concern. Therefore, it is important to highlight such incidents and the reporting of the incident certainly was in public interest. NBDSA did not find any violation of the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards and Guidelines in the impugned programme. NBDSA therefore decided to close the complaint and inform the complainant and the broadcaster accordingly.

24.06.2023
The complaint concerned the program “News Hour” which was a news debate on “opposition meet in Patna”. In the impugned programme, the anchor made some remarks which were against the fundamental principles, Section 1 and principles of Self-Regulation, Section 2. The anchor made a comment suggesting that since the general elections were nearing, there was a chance that incidents like “Pulwama terror attack” would happen again. This, the complainant stated, could not be a simple remark from the anchor when, as a viewer, the discussion was about political steps initiated by the Government near the elections. The anchor’s remark suggested that “Pulwama terror attack” was an orchestrated act by the Government of India to win the elections. The complainant questioned whether a news channel could make such a comment especially when the country was fighting internal and external terrorism. Vide complaint dated 10.07.2023, the complainant stated that the broadcaster had in its response mentioned that the anchor meant to convey that the Union Government’s strong response to the Pulwama terror attack, and the Balakot strike helped the ruling party. However, anyone who understands Malayalam language could understand that the anchor clearly intervened when the guest was talking about political developments, UCC, etc., which could impact the general elections.

6.11.2023
NBDSA considered the complaint, response of the broadcaster, and the translated transcript of the programme. NBDSA did not find any violation of the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards and the Guidelines in the impugned programme. NBDSA, therefore, decided to close the complaint and inform the complainant and the broadcaster accordingly.

20.05.2023
The complaint related to a confusing and incorrect broadcast concerning the circulation ban on Rs.2000. The complainant stated that the broadcaster attempted to capture the attention of its audience by broadcasting a misleading and confusing news concerning the withdrawal of the 2000-rupee banknotes. In its response dated 20.5.2023, the broadcaster had accepted the fact that the broadcast of the said program "Note bandi 2" “was to capture the attention of our audience” which is per se in violation of Section 1-Fundamental Principles and Section 10- Corrigendum of the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards.

6.11.2023
Prior to considering the complaint, NBDSA considered the application for condonation of delay filed by the complainant and response of the broadcaster. Since, there was a delay of only one day in escalating the complaint to the second level of redressal, NBDSA under Proviso 1 to Regulation 8.2 decided to condone the delay and consider the complaint on merits. NBDSA considered the complaint, response of the broadcaster and viewed the footage of the programme. On a perusal of the footage, it was found that the impugned broadcast merely informed the viewers that while Reserve Bank of India had withdrawn Rs.2,000/- banknotes from circulation, the broadcast did not insinuate that ‘Notebandi’ meant that the same could not be treated as legal tender. In view of the above, NBDSA did not find that there were any mistakes, significant or otherwise, in the impugned broadcast which needed to be acknowledged and corrected. Therefore, NBDSA found no violation of the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards in the impugned broadcast. NBDSA decided to close the complaint and inform the complainant and the broadcaster accordingly.

29.03.2023
The complaint was in respect of a broadcast titled “News Ki Pathshala” aired on 22.03.2023 for violating the Fundamental Principle Number 4, Principle Numbers 1 and 2 of Self-Regulation relating to Impartiality and Objectivity in reporting and ensuring Neutrality respectively. In the impugned broadcast, the vocabulary of the anchor was indistinguishable from a BJP spokesperson, as he repeatedly promoted criticism of the BJP as being motivated by intent to defame Modi or spread lies against him. The coverage, particularly the reporting on the banking crisis, amounted to blatant political partisanship.

6.7.2023
NBDSA considered the complaint and the response of the broadcaster and viewed the footage of the broadcast. NBDSA found no violation of the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards in the impugned broadcast. However, NBDSA emphasized that in programmes such as “News Ki Pathshala” , the anchor should keep in mind that facts should be clearly distinguishable from, and not be mixed-up with, opinion, analysis and comment. NBDSA decided to close the complaint with the aforesaid observations and inform the broadcaster & the complainant accordingly.

25.02.2023
The complainant stated that the programme titled “George Soros on PM Modi: ???? ???? ?????? ???? EXPOSE ?? ??? | S Jaishankar | Gautam Adani |New York” violated Fundamental Principle Number 4 and Principle Numbers 1 and 2 of Self-Regulation relating to Impartiality and Objectivity in reporting and ensuring Neutrality respectively. The broadcast promoted the point of view of Interest Group 1 (namely BJP, Narendra Modi, S Jaishankar) that the comments made by George Soros were anti-Indian, dangerous and motivated solely by anti- Modi intent.

6.7.2023
NBDSA considered the complaint and the response of the broadcaster and viewed the footage of the broadcast. NBDSA found no violation of the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards in the impugned broadcast. NBDSA decided to close the complaint and inform the broadcaster & the complainant accordingly.

21.02.2023
The complaint relates to a debate titled “Haqiqat Kya Hai| IT Raid On BBC | PM Modi | Delhi”. In the impugned programme, the Hindenburg Report and the BBC documentary were repeatedly promoted as being motivated by anti-Modi and anti-Indian sentiment. The vocabulary used in the broadcast was identical to the words used by Interest Group 1 (namely BJP and Adani group) to defend the charges of Interest Group 2 (namely BBC and Opposition parties) against them. The broadcaster attempted to promote the beliefs of Interest Group 1 throughout the impugned broadcast. The coverage thus effectively amounted to political patronage. Further, the statements made by Interest Group 2 were repeatedly promoted as lies. The anchor in the broadcast tried to support the BJP by discrediting all the statements and information given by the opposition. By airing the impugned broadcast, the broadcaster had violated Fundamental Principle Number 4, and Principle Number 1 and 2 of Self-Regulation relating to impartiality and objectivity in reporting and ensuring neutrality under the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards.

6.7.2023
NBDSA considered the complaint and the response of the broadcaster and viewed the footage of the broadcast. NBDSA observed that the views of several persons were put forth in the broadcast. Therefore, NBDSA found no violation of the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards in the impugned broadcast. NBDSA decided to close the complaint and inform the broadcaster & the complainant accordingly.