The complainant alleged that the broadcaster aired that the transfer list issued by Police Headquarter had been stalled by some police inspectors. These police inspectors were those who did not want to go naxal affected and neither had worked in those areas and they also aired the names of 9-10 police inspectors. According to the complainant this was one sided news as there were inspectors who were serving in naxal areas for more than two years. The complainant alleged that genuine requests of transfer were considered by the police department under its regulations which had not been telecast by the channel. Such reporting was not objective, impartial or neutral. The complainant approached the NBSA as his complaint was returned undelivered by the postal authorities, which the complainant stated is with him.

20.3.2012
MIB had advised the channel to fully cooperate with the NBA/ NBSA in disposal of the complaint. NBSA considered the reply given by the broadcaster and decided that the broadcaster be advised to submit the documents in support of the subject broadcast and was available with him. NBSA considered the documents submitted and noted that the broadcaster had collated enough documentary evidence before airing the story. It was accordingly decided that the complaint be closed and no further action requires to be taken in the matter. The complaint was closed.

The complaint was regarding showing the photograph of a farmer’s dead body by the channel. The complainant stated that the scene of such dead bodies should not be shown in such a manner, as it can hurt the feelings of the relatives as well as the public. Since the channel was not a member of NBA, MIB while forwarding the complaint to NBSA had also directed channel to cooperate NBA/NBSA in disposing this complaint.

20.3.2012
NBSA found that reporting of news relating to farmer suicides was relevant and important to inform the viewers though the visuals of the dead body should have been masked so as not to cause distress to the viewers, and in particular not to aggravate distress to the family who had lost a member. It was decided that since the broadcaster was not a member of the NBA they be given copies of the Code of Ethics & Specific Guidelines Covering Reportage and Advisory regarding broadcast of distressing footage. The broadcaster be informed that while the regulations are not binding on them, they may circulate these guidelines to their editorial staff as it would help in improving broadcasting standards. The complaint was closed.

The complaint was regarding illicit behaviour portrayal of the complainant by the channel with the news headline as “Mumbai ke piyyakkad”. The complainant had informed the channel that the footage broadcasted had displayed wrong picture of his character on national television.

20.3.2012
NBSA noted that the issue of drunken driving shown by the channel repeatedly was in public interest, to which the NBSA concurred and did not find anything objectionable in the programme. NBSA decided to close the complaint

The complainant stated that the channel without verifying facts aired a news item that there was an agitation at Government Women’s Polytechnic College, Hassan, Karnataka and students had gone on strike on 20.1.12, alleging that their lecturer one Ms. Varalakshmi was not taking the classes for the 4th semester and she abused the students whenever they raised this issue. The complainant also alleged that the broadcaster acted as a representative of the students and mouth piece of the principal of the college. The complainant further alleged that the telecast had adversely affected her career, reputation and above all violated her fundamental rights as the broadcaster had telecasted the version of one group or without verifying the ground reality in the Polytechnic. The telecast violated the principles of impartiality and objectivity in reporting.

20.3.2012
NBSA noted that the broadcaster had averred in their reply that the story was balanced as they had carried the version of a student as well as the version of the complainant, which had not been mentioned in the complaint. NBSA noted that the reply given by the broadcaster had been forwarded to the complainant, to which there was no further response from the complainant; and it therefore appears that the complainant was satisfied with the response received from the broadcaster. NBSA accordingly decided that no further action needs to be taken in the matter and the matter be closed.

The complainant alleged that the channel had telecast sustained and targeted news report against him at the behest of another officer of his service who was inimical towards him and had been writing and generating complaints against him. He alleged that the officer had launched a malicious and factually incorrect campaign against him by dishing out some false stories based on twisted news reporting by the said Shri Indrajit Rai, reporter of Zee News with a view to stall his promotion. The news report had damaged his image and reputation.

20.3.2012
NBSA decided that since there was no further communication from the complainant, it appears that the complainant was satisfied with the response received from the broadcaster; and the matter be closed.

The complaint was regarding a programme on love marriage vs arranged marriage on “Humlog” programme. The complainant stated that the anchor should not be a verdict giver and he should be impartial with both sides as the topic of discussion was of serious nature.

20.3.2012
NBSA was of the view that this appears to be a case of the personal sensibilities of the complainant having been hurt ; and that no further action needs to be taken in the matter. The complaint was closed.

The complaint was regarding a programme titled “PFI training cadre for questioning” wherein it was stated that in the impugned broadcast, the channel had alleged that the organisation Popular Front of India, was giving training to its cadres to handle questioning (namely interrogation by investigative agencies), which was incorrect and such reportage had damaged the reputation of the organisation.

20.3.2012
NBSA noted that the legal notice mentioned that if the broadcaster did not take action to tender an unconditional apology, the complainant would initiate civil and criminal proceedings before the competent court of law. In view of the contents of the legal notice, the NBSA decided that before it proceeds with the matter under its regulations, it be ascertained from the complainant whether it intended to proceed legally against the broadcaster. Based on the reply received, the NBSA would take further action under its regulations. The decision of the NBSA had been conveyed to the complainant. Since there was no response, NBSA decided to close the matter.

The complainant vide legal notice dated 20.2.12, had brought to the notice of the broadcaster a news telecast on the channel, relating to the alleged remarks made by his client about the “dress of women”. The notice stated that the reporters never bothered to cross check the veracity of the alleged statement made by his client in the annual press conference on 30.12.11 at Hyderabad. The notice stated that such irresponsible telecast had damaged the reputation of his client and hence sought an unconditional apology and a rejoinder at the same time.

20.3.2012
NBSA decided that no further action was required to be taken in the matter as the complainant had not approached NBSA and it seemed that the complainant intended to pursue the matter in a Court of law. The complaint was closed.

The complaint was regarding a programme titled “Saath schoolie bacche ghayal” aired on the channel. The report stated that 7 students along with the driver had got seriously injured due to an accident. The complainant alleged that the news report was fabricated as only the driver had got injured with minor injuries to the children. The news report had caused panic amongst the parents.

20.3.2012
NBSA decided that since the broadcaster had carried a version of the Principal of the school regarding the accident. No further action needs to be taken and the matter be closed.

The complainant alleged that in the programme telecast of the Godhra incident on the channel, his father Molana Umarji who was one of the accused in the Godhra incident, was projected as chief conspirator despite being acquitted after nine years by the trial court and the trial court had not said anything about his father in the judgement pronounced.

20.3.2012
NBSA noted that on receipt of the complaint, the broadcaster had taken steps to telecast a brief version in their news as an immediate corrective action, which had been confirmed by the complainant .NBSA decided that since the complainant was satisfied with the action taken by the broadcaster the matter be closed. NBSA decided that the broadcaster be informed that before airing such sensitive matters, there must be thorough verification of facts.