11.11.2019 Complaint: The complaint is that on 23.10.2019 Republic TV ran a news report linking Mr. and Mrs. Kundra to D-Company. In the report it was mentioned that Mr. Raj Kundra and Mrs. Shilpa Shetty Kundra had business links with D-Gang associates. It was stated that Mrs. Shilpa Shetty Kundra was a Director and Mr. Kundra was shareholder in Essential Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (EHPL). It was also stated that Essential Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. received money as investment and interest free loans from RKW Developers during the tenure of 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. In the headlines in the new report in question they had published statements like:"100cr loan given to Shilpa-Linked Firm","Raj Kundra got loan from Dheerai Wadhwan",'RKW gave loan to Rai Kundra and Shilpa Shetty”. The complaint stated that in the news report the channel and the reporter deliberately failed to mention the timeline of such events; that Mr. Raj Kundra and Mrs. Shilpa Shetty Kundra were the shareholders of the company, Essential Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. which was incorporated on 21.4.2009; there was a prolonged negotiation between EHPL and RKW Developers and Mr. Kundra had to sell a plot near the Airport in 2011 to RKW Developers; later he decided to sell his entire shareholding to RKW Developers subject to certain compliances in lieu of which certain advances were received by EHPL from RKW Developers to meet certain obligations; the entire deal was well documented and verified for Mr. Raj Kundra and Mrs. Shilpa Shetty Kundra by Hariani & Co. Solicitors; the final share sale agreement was entered into between RKW Developers and Essential Hospitality Private Limited on 21.6 2013; thereafter, Mr. Raj Kundra and Mrs. Shilpa Shetty Kundra resigned from the Board of Directors of EHPL on 26.7.2013 concluding the entire transfer of shareholdings to the RKW Developers; Mr. Raj Kundra and Mrs. Shilpa Shetty Kundra exited the company by selling their shareholdings on 26.7.2013 whereas the documents which were so highly entrusted and used for making such false and misleading bulletin by Republic TV clearly stated that the loans in question were given in the tenure of 2016-2018; that such false and misleading news report linking them to the D Company is a direct attack on the reputation of Mr. and Mrs. Kundra; such report has been run by the channel with gross negligence without conducting proper investigation, obtaining substantial evidence and without even confirming the facts from the people in question. with the intent to sabotage and tarnish the name, goodwill, reputation, celebrity status, and clean image of such people, and with the intention of boosting the TRP of their news channel. The complainants suggested the need of proper laws, regulations and policies that that will keep such news channels and news reports in check and will ensure that legitimate news reports are broadcast after thorough investigation of the story and background and with substantial evidence to back such news reports; in the scenario that any news channel does not abide by the policies then hefty fines shall be imposed on such channels and reporters; in addition, licenses of such reporters and channels being suspended for a temporary period. Response from the Broadcaster: Broadcaster stated that they did not carry any "defamatory content" as alleged. The broadcast was primarily a debate centered around exposing the multiple and widespread business dealings of the D Company. The debate included Mr. Raj Kundra's voluntary participation and relevant questions were put to him fairly in the presence of a panel of legal luminaries; the questions put to him were based on public records and admissions by their own client; in the circumstances, the broadcast cannot be termed as "defamatory". It has alleged that a news report done by Republic TV on a company called Essential Hospitality Private Limited TV, by linking them with the D-Company impinged on the reputation of the complainants. The channel stated that did not link Mr. Raj Kundra and Mrs. Shilpa Shetty Kundra to the D-company but instead put out the facts as they were i.e. that Mrs. Kundra was a Director in Essential Hospitality Pvt Limited and her husband, Mr. Kundra was a subscriber to shares in this company. Republic TV highlighted certain facts concerning Essential Hospitality Pvt Limited, including the various substantial investments made in it by a company called RKW Developers Private Limited; it is also a fact that Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Bindra, was one of the Directors of RKW Developers is alleged to have close links to Dawood aide Iqbal Mirchi. Broadcaster submitted that the reports of Essential Hospitality’s business dealings have not been denied by Mr. Raj Kundra in the tweets that he put out on 23rd October, which was carried on the channel. Mr. Raj Kundra himself acknowledged having business ties with Mr. Ranjeet Bindra who was taken into custody by the Enforcement Directorate to question him on his links with D-company’s gangster Iqbal Mirchi. The news story that was published by Republic TV was based on public records and documentation. It is part of any news channel’s duty to raise relevant questions and seek answers based on information available in the public domain that concerns the interest of public at large. The same has been widely reported across various media. They submitted that it is highly distressing that in the letter addressed to the MIB the complainants have not come out with the complete facts. They have completely overlooked to mention that Mr. Raj Kundra has agreed to be interviewed by Mr. Goswami on his own accord and that he was given a fair opportunity to put forth his case. Mr. Arnab Goswami, asked pointed questions to Mr. Raj Kundra, and did so in the presence of multiple lawyers ensuring legal correctness of the line of questioning. Mr. Raj Kundra was given 31 minutes on a prime time show to give his version, both in Hindi, and in English, thereby ensuring that both versions reach the widest possible audience. Therefore, the claim that the broadcaster ran the new report without confirming facts from the people in question is completely untrue.

6.12.2019
NBSA considered the complaint, response of the broadcaster and also viewed the CD of the alleged broadcast. NBSA noted that the broadcaster had ensured that the controversial subject was fairly presented by presenting all points of view, with time being allotted fairly to each point of view. Bearing in mind the above principles, the broadcaster had given Mr. Raj Kundra (complainant) 31minutes to put forth his views in the debate. NBSA was therefore of the view that in the said broadcast aired on 23.10.2019, the broadcaster had not violated the guidelines of NBSA relating to impartiality, objectivity & neutrality. NBSA therefore decided to close the complaint and inform the MoI&B and the broadcaster accordingly.

6.9.2019 & 15.7.2019 Complaint dated 6.9.2019: The complainant alleged that on 5.9.2019 at 6:00 PM, Sun TV had telecast unsubstantiated news about Tamilnadu ’s Governor and Kashmir. The channel was promoting social unrest in Tamilnadu and it is propagating secessionism to the people of Tamilnadu with its broadcasting machinery. The channel was broadcasting sensitive news without any scruples every day against the state and central governments. Complaint dated 15.7.2019: Sun TV in the news telecast on 14.7.2019 at 06:00 pm was continuously transmitting biased news since it is belongs to a political party (DMK); it is inciting innocent people of the public to stand against the central government and it is willfully hiding the state and central governments’ good people welfare schemes; it only highlights some sporadic incidents happening here and there to tarnish the image of the ruling party and it is showing the country in bad light worldwide; it is simply glorifying notorious criminals as volunteers and clandestinely supporting them to create social unrest. Response from the broadcaster: Broadcaster stated that the complaint is without any substance as the same is vague, non-specific and does not refer to any news aired by the channel which is alleged to be against the government and/or hiding the state and central government welfare schemes, which reveals any dubious intent with an ulterior motive of tarnishing the reputation of the channel or any other non-factual and derogatory statements that the channel is supposedly promoting social unrest in Tamilnadu and propagating secessionism to the people of Tamilnadu. The broadcaster submitted that having overseen the entire news bulletin aired on 14.07.2019 @ 6.00 pm and on 5.9.2019, no such news item/s as alleged in the complaint have been aired. Further with reference to news telecast on 5.9.2019 at 6 pm which was allegedly “unsubstantiated news about Tamilnadu Governor and Kashmir”, the broadcaster stated that the entire news bulletin had one reference about Tamilnadu Governor and another reference on Kashmir. In the news about dismissal of a student from Madras University, the news item merely referred to the petition by the student. There were no other news items with reference to the Governor. Further the bulletin had a brief news about Supreme Court permitting Ms. Iltija to meet her mother and former CM of Kashmir Ms. Mehbooba Mufti, who is under house arrest. The news also stated that the court ordered shifting of Kashmir State CPI(M) Secretary Mr. Tarigami to the AIIMS at Delhi for treatment. There is no other reference to Kashmir on that day.

6.12.2019
NBSA considered the complaints, response from the broadcaster and also viewed the CD of the alleged broadcasts. NBSA noted that the contents on a news broadcast are matters of editorial discretion and no action can be taken on the basis of an individual’s view or perception on such issues. NBSA found no violation of its Regulations or Guidelines in regard to the said broadcasts and therefore decided to close the complaint and inform the MoI&B and the broadcaster accordingly.

17.8.2019 Mr. Prasanth P.R, Editor member representing Asianet News Network Pvt. Ld. in NBSA being an interested party, recused himself from the proceedings. Complaint: It is alleged by the complainant that a particular anchor of the channel gets locals to explain anti feelings against the India government, to get viewership. His reporting is very anti India that generates 'hatred and negative thoughts' in the minds of Muslims in Kerala which is not a good sign. Response from the broadcaster: The broadcaster in response stated that the program was a detailed report about the current situation in Jammu & Kashmir, which was reported for 14 days by the channel with its journalists traveling across the state. There was nothing in the said news item which endangered the security of the country. In the said news report, they were showing the opinion of two ladies from Pulwama District, who were ordinary citizens and not perpetrators of any crime and there was no violation of any code relating to national security. The ladies expressed their opinion and it was not the opinion of the channel. The channel stated that having widely reported the opinions of people from all walks of life including the Principal Spokesman of Government as well as Chief Secretary; the Government authorities were giving details of how things were back to normal and the channel reported it with all importance; they extensively covered the Independence Day celebrations and speech by the Hon'ble Governor; they had the telecast the views of the people in Ladakh, who hailed the decision of the Government; they travelled to Kheer Bhawani temple in Gandherbal and recorded views of the Pundits present there and telecast the same; the allegation that they did not record the views of pundits is patently false and was made to mislead authorities by raising false and highly defamatory charges against the news channel; the channel didn't coerce anyone to speak but only recorded the views those persons who wanted to express their opinion; it is a fact that many media houses in India and abroad have published similar opinions of people in Jammu and Kashmir; the actual state of affairs prevailing in the State was being reported by the news channel in discharge of its professional obligation to the public about the truth; democracy can flourish only under the watchful eyes of the media which has to reflect the diverse opinions of its citizen. The broadcaster stated that the allegations were baseless and no words or views in the telecast were in violation of the NBA/NBSA Regulations/ Guidelines;

6.12.2019
NBSA considered the complaint, response from the broadcaster, the translated script and also viewed the CD of the alleged broadcast. NBSA noted that the fundamental purpose of dissemination of news in a democracy is to educate and inform the people of the happenings in the country, so that the people of the country understand significant events and form their own conclusions. NBSA found no violation of its Regulations or Guidelines in regard to the said broadcast as it was a fair and balanced reporting. NBSA therefore decided to close the complaint and inform the MoI&B and the broadcaster accordingly.

16.7.2019 Complaint: The initial complaint dated 16.7.2019 forwarded by the MoI&B to NBSA did not have details relating to the date and time of the broadcasts. The complainant therefore vide email dated 17.10.2019 filed a supplementary application by attaching the links of the impugned news items which were running unscientific, baseless, person centric promotional and hateful news stories: (1) ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? Tez News Channel, Date 14/07/2019, Time 12:57 PM https://youtu.be/v7bL4j5z-ms (2) Aaj Tak News ???? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ?????? 09/07/2019 09:30 PM (3) Zee Rajasthan ????? ?? ??? ???? 07/06/2019 https://youtu.be/IJlrRYysqTE (4) ABP News ????????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ???????? ? 06/09/2019 https://youtu.be/Bm00iyIZvjY (5) Tez ???? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?? 09/07/2019 Response from ABP News: The broadcaster stated that they did not run the same as a news headline but were running it in the background which was never intended to be defamatory nor abusive to any Indian citizen or media; the debate was based on the technological advancements and achievements made by India including the Chandrayan Mission and the program was a fair and transparent comparison of India and Pakistan on developments in the field of space. The debate showed a mirror as to where India and Pakistan are today in the field of space even though both nations became independent at the same time. The participants in the debate included a Pakistani who also expressed counter views, thus, the programme complied with the requirement of due impartiality Response from Zee Rajasthan: Broadcaster stated that the telecast in question aimed at highlighting the inefficiency, inability and incompetence of the system, in a satirical manner. The programme was aired in context of an unfortunate incident of AN-32 jet of the Indian Air Force going off the radar on 3.6.2019 in Arunachal Pradesh with 13 people on board. It was only on 11.6.2019 that the wreckage of the crashed jet was found. The programme was aired on 7.6.2019 i.e. 4 (four) days after the first information of the missing jet was communicated to the general public. The programme was also significant in view of that fact that India, which dreams of becoming super power, was unable to locate and track its missing jet for several days. The programme further highlighted lack of technological advancement, technological prowess and satirically stated that it appears that it had been taken been away by aliens. The telecast had not propagated any unscientific or baseless story but questioned the concerned authorities and the government that if they could not find their aircraft in water as well as on land, then should the general public presume that these disappearances are act of aliens. It is further submitted that the intention of the alleged telecast was to invoke a thought that if incidents like these wherein, AN-32 which is a very powerful aircraft equipped with all modern technologies, cannot be located even after the claims of astronomical advancement, then it is a matter of concern. Response from Aaj Tak & Tez: Broadcaster stated that they perused the complaint and found the same insincere in as much the same is filled with innuendoes and is tongue in cheek hence the broadcaster would not comment on the said letter and request the complainant to withdraw the same.

6.12.2019
NBSA considered the complaint, responses from the broadcasters and also viewed the CDs of the alleged broadcasts in respect of ABP News and Zee Rajasthan. Aaj Tak & Tez did not submit the CD of the alleged broadcast. As far as ABP News and Zee Rajasthan are concerned, NBSA found no violation of its Regulations or Guidelines in regard to the said broadcasts. NBSA therefore decided to close the complaint and inform the MoI&B and the broadcasters accordingly. As far as Aaj Tak & Tez channels are concerned, upon consideration of the response, NBSA noted that it expected a more coherent response in respect of the complaints in the present or in the future. NBSA also noted that by the time the complainant sent the details of the broadcast 90 days was over. Therefore, the broadcaster could not be requested to send the CD of the alleged broadcast.

1.6.2019 Complaint: The complainant stated that the Mr. Ravish Kumar had wrongly interpreted the interview of the Minister Shri Nishank regarding forecasting of natural calamities. Response from the broadcaster: The broadcaster in its reply dated 23.10.2019 informed the complainant that his complaint is a feedback and there is no allegation in his complaint in regard to violation of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 or Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards of the NBSA.

6.12.2019
NBSA considered the complaint, response from the broadcaster and also viewed the CD of the alleged broadcast. NBSA found no violation of its Regulations or Guidelines in regard to the said broadcast. NBSA therefore decided to close the complaint and inform the MoI&B and the broadcaster accordingly.

Complaint The complaint is that ABP Majha and Zee 24 Taas were repeatedly showing opinion polls in contravention of election rules and also the Guidelines for Election Broadcasts of NBSA dated 3.3.2014, which was also issued by the ECI by a Press Note dated 26.9.2019 wherein the attention of media/broadcasters were invited to the Guidelines for Election Broadcasts of NBSA. The complainant stated that there was no disclosure in the opinion polls as to who commissioned, conducted and paid for the conduct of the opinion polls and the broadcast. There was also no specific explanation about the context, and the scope and limits of such polls with their limitations, neither was it accompanied by information to assist viewers to understand the poll’s significance such as methodology used, the sample size, the margin of error, the fieldwork dates and data used. The above act on the part of the channels was in flagrant violation of election rules and the Guidelines for Election Broadcast and it may affect and prejudice the minds of viewers. Response of ABP Majha The broadcaster in its response refuted the allegations made in the complaint. It stated that the concern stems from the ABP Majha show aired on 21.9.2019 under the name and style “Koul Marathi Manacha – Mood Maharashtra cha – Opinion Poll 2019”. The broadcaster stated that ABP Majha’s anchor had requested his colleague to explain to all the viewers the procedure followed in such opinion poll. Ms. Bharati in her own words stated that,“Whenever we show such poll/survey, in that case, how such poll/survey is conducted, who has conducted such survey/poll is important to be known…” and thus she explained the procedure for such opinion poll . She stated that the Opinion Poll was conducted by C- Voter. The sample size used to arrive at the result of the Opinion Poll was 4,855, consisting of persons of age group of 18 years and above, from diverse professions so as to accommodate the opinions of each and every segment of the population and the said poll was conducted at different time intervals i.e. from 1.9.2019 to 10.9.2019. They fairly disclosed the vote shares and seat shares in the said Opinion Poll. Response of Zee 24 Taas Broadcaster in its response stated that the complaint does not mention the date and time of alleged broadcast and therefore it is difficult to understand the grievance and redress the same. However, it had made all efforts by going through the record of the telecasts and found that no such telecast was aired by Zee 24 Taas after the commencement of the elections and in violation of the model code of conduct and NBSA guidelines. NBSA noted that since Zee 24 Taas confirmed that that no such telecast was aired on the channel, there was no need to proceed further with the complaint viz a viz the channel.

6.12.2019
With regard to the complaint of ABP Majha NBSA considered the complaint, response of the broadcaster and also viewed the CD of the alleged broadcast. NBSA noted that in view of the complete details given by the broadcaster regarding the procedure followed to conduct the opinion poll, the broadcaster had not violated Rule 11 of the Guidelines for Election Broadcast, which requires that the “ Broadcast of opinion polls should be accompanied by information to assist viewers to understand the poll's significance, such as the methodology used, the sample size, the margin of error, the fieldwork dates, and data used. Broadcasters should also disclose how vote shares are converted to seat shares”. NBSA therefore decided to close the complaint and inform the Deputy Secretary & Joint Chief Electoral Officer, Maharashtra State and the broadcasters accordingly.

31.10.2019 Complaint dated 17.10.2019 1. Aaj Tak show aired and published on 16.10. 2019 The complainant stated that the title of the show is: Ayodhya Dispute: “??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ?? Rohit Sardana ?? ???”. In this show, an individual who was addressed as “Swami Karpatri Ji Maharaj”, expressed some controversial and abhorrent views with respect to the Ayodhya case and declared “18 November se ayodhya me Shri Ram Janmabhoomi ka nirman hoga” and “faisla nischittaur se hai, mere paksh me hai” (On November 18, the formation/birth of Ram Janmabhoomi will begin; the Judgement will undoubtedly be in our favour.). Complainant stated that this is not just a provocative statement made without a disclaimer by the channel especially when the verdict, in such a sensitive and crucial matter, from the Hon’ble Supreme Court was still awaited; such statements tend to incite public disharmony and could lead to disruption of public order; such content has been aired despite of the NBSA issuing a special advisory, dated 16.10.2019, to all news channels to be extra cautious while conducting debates and stated that “it is incumbent on the news broadcasters to take extra care and be cautious while telecasting news relating to sensitive and emotive matters”; the guidelines of the NBSA have not been followed in broadcasting this content. The show aired on news channel, Aaj Tak, has also been uploaded also on the YouTube Channel of Aaj Tak on 16.10.2019 and had more than 3 lakh views. Reply from broadcaster The broadcaster stated that any news debate telecasted by the channel is directed towards fostering civility in public discourse on the issues that are relevant in day to day lives of the people of this country. The debates aim towards bringing the people with different ideological background on one platform and put their opinion on an issue which can be solved by healthy exchange of opinion and intellectual deliberations. The debates also act as an educative tool to the masses. Swami Karpatri Ji Maharaj was one of the panelists in the debate aired by the channel who has inclination towards a particular ideology (which he represented on the panel) just like any other ideology that has been nourished in India on account of its pluralist society. The news channel promotes ideological diversity. The channel respects the freedom of speech and expression of every individual as enshrined in the Constitution of India, therefore, it was not appropriate to show a disclaimer as the same happened spontaneously. The statement of a panelist cannot be attributed to the news channel but solely to the narrator who express it. It should be highlighted that the news channel through its anchor only moderates the discourse and in no way expresses its own opinion without being meaningful and courteous Further reply from the complainant The complainant in response stated that while that is a healthy practice, the debate that is being complained against, was in clear contravention of the Important Advisory issued by the NBSA, dated 16.10.2019 regarding “Reporting of Ayodhya matter pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court” as also NBSA’s Specific Guidelines Covering Reportage ; the broadcaster cannot resort to and misuse the freedom of speech and expression bestowed upon by the Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a) as the same is to be read, at all times, with Article 19(2) which imposes reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression; these reasonable restrictions have been embodied in the aforementioned Advisory and Guidelines issued by the NBSA; these Guidelines and Advisory have been issued by the NBSA to keep this very freedom of speech and expression in check so that such a fundamental right is not misused to serve malafide intents of any broadcaster; the broadcaster has, thus, knowingly or unknowingly, endorsed the comments of the participant in the debate in the show titled “??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ?? Rohit Sardana ?? ???” on 16.10.2019; this was not just a provocative statement made without a disclaimer by the channel especially when the verdict, in such a sensitive and crucial matter, from the Hon’ble Supreme Court was then awaited, but such statements tend to incite public disharmony and could lead to disruption of public order; the news channel has thus violated the Important Advisory issued by the NBSA, dated October 16, 2019, the principles of the Code of Conduct of NBSA which states that news shall not be selected or designed to promote any particular belief, opinion or desires of any interest group, impartiality and objectivity in reporting, ensuring neutrality, endangering national security. Additionally, the channel has violated the Specific Guidelines Covering Reportage relating to Impartiality, Neutrality & Fairness, Law & Order, Crime & Violence and Racial & Religious Harmony. 2. Complaint made with regard to the tweet that was posted through the verified Twitter account of Aaj Tak The second complaint has been made to the tweet that was posted through the verified Twitter Account of Aaj Tak on 15.10.2019 wherein the graphic complementing the tweet contains the caption: “Janmabhumi Hamaari, Ram Hamaare, Masjid Waale Kahan Se Padhare”? This particular tweet, unquestionably, has been put out to provoke negative sentiments against one community and is an attempt to sensationalize the Ayodhya case news coverage. This violates the NBSA Advisory on Ayodhya. A news channel ought to be aware of the potent influence it has on public opinion and hence be cautious while putting out content which could even slightly tend to disturb public order and communal harmony. The channel appears to have put into jeopardy the secular ethos of the country. In view of this, it is in best interest, that the channel removes the above-mentioned content on the Twitter account. Reply from the broadcaster The complaint has been made to the tweet that was posted through the verified Twitter Account of Aaj Tak on 15.10.2019 wherein the graphic complementing the tweet contains the following caption: “Janmabhumi Hamaari, Ram Hamaare, Masjid Waale Kahan Se Padhare”? It has been alleged that the tweet has been put out to provoke negative sentiments against one community and is an attempt to sensationalize the Ayodhya case news coverage and violation of the NBSA’s guidelines. The channel has been asked to retract and remove it. Broadcaster stated that the said caption “Janmabhumi Hamaari, Ram Hamaare, Masjid Waale Kahan Se Padhare” was not something that was coined and invented by the news channel especially for the purpose of telecast. Rather, the same was taken out of the discussion that took place in the courtroom during the course of hearing of the civil appeal in the Ayodhya dispute. Also, the premise of the arguments put by the Hindu Mahasabha before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was based on the same idea which the caption speaks of and that have been reiterated by them before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The channel therefore has done nothing but reproduced an argument that was already part of the record. Further the said caption was enclosed within two inverted commas (‘ ’) which affirms the fact that it was reproduction of a statement/an argument made by someone which was quoted by the channel. Further, it was just a teaser of the program and never came into picture at any time during broadcast of the said story. The intention of the channel behind the present tweet was not to induce public to form a certain opinion but to bring before them the point of view of one of the parties to a dispute that has been going on for decades. Therefore, putting an impediment on the true and fair reporting with a whip will be nothing but unconstitutional. Reply from the complainant The complainant in response stated that the broadcaster has contended that the “caption is not something that was coined and invented by the News Channel especially for the purpose of the telecast; rather the same was taken out of the discussion that took place in the Courtroom during the hearing of Civil appeal in the Ayodhya dispute”; it was submitted that it was never their contention that the caption was coined by the channel; a news channel reports news to the people and it is the moral responsibility of a channel to “seek the truth and report it fairly with integrity” and also “ensuring that controversial subjects are fairly presented” and additionally ensuring that “selection of items of news shall be governed by public interest”; even if it is assumed that the caption was a quote picked from a Courtroom discussion, the same being highlighted by the channel in its Twitter post, as an advertisement or endorsement for its programme, does not uphold any of the principles mentioned hereinabove; these are fundamental principles which news channels/broadcasters ought to follow as a matter of principle and self-regulation, as members of the NBA; further the caption does not carry any disclaimer saying that this is not a view endorsed by the channel neither is the name of the person who made the comment appearing after the caption; even if it is assumed that the channel has simply quoted someone, the same is not at all clear from the Twitter post; The channel is only trying to back track from the views it has clearly endorsed, by posting such inflammatory and inciteful content which could and must have certainly hurt the religious sentiments of the Muslim Community in a secular country like India; the impact of the telecast and the social media post cannot but have a deleterious impact; this kind of targeted hateful content keeps growing its tentacles to reach every Indian living room and due to the reach of social media, every user of social media, without any opposition and is against the preambular goal of fraternity and integrity of the nation; such contents are aimed at fueling disharmony within the nation and it undermines the promise of brotherhood, peace and inclusivity on which the Indian nation is premised.

6.12.2019
1. NBSA considered the complaint, response from the broadcaster, further response from the complainants and also viewed the CD of the alleged broadcast. NBSA noted that while the broadcaster may have no control on what a participant in a programme may state, it definitely can avoid inviting persons who have ideological leanings, which the broadcaster is aware may result in provocative statements being made in a “live” programme, which is likely to offend the sensitivities of any religious group or may create religious intolerance or disharmony especially when the verdict, in such a sensitive and crucial matter, from the Hon’ble Supreme Court was still awaited. NBSA decided to give a warning to the channel be more circumvent and careful in the future. In the event that such telecasts are repeated by the broadcaster, NBSA will take appropriate action under its regulations. NBSA however directed the broadcaster to remove the programme Ayodhya Dispute: “??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ?? Rohit Sardana ?? ???” from the YouTube channel and report compliance to NBSA within seven days of receipt of such direction form the NBSA. NBSA also observed that broadcasters would be responsible for violations of Broadcasting Standards and Guidelines in regard to the content of any programme aired on the channel; that neither any “disclaimers” before any programme nor the fact that offending statements/views expressed by independent anchors, invited guests or other participants, would relieve them from the liability/responsibility for violation of the Standards/Guidelines of NBA/ NBSA . NBSA, therefore decided to inform the broadcaster and the complainant accordingly. 2. NBSA considered the complaint, responses of the broadcaster and counter response of the complainant. NBSA noted that since the broadcaster had confirmed that the image reproduced mentioning “Janambhoomi Hamari Ram Hamare Masjid Wale Kahan Se Padhare” were promoted only on social media, NBSA could not proceed further with the complaint as the content available on social media did not fall in the jurisdiction of the NBSA. Therefore, it could not proceed to take action under the NBSA Regulations.NBSA, therefore decided to close the complaint and inform the broadcaster and the complainant accordingly.

25.10.2019 Complaint dated 17.10.2019 Ccomplaint is that the channel had broadcast the show with headline "???????? ?????, ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????" on 15.10.2019 at 7.00 pm and also tweeted the same text and image. The complainant stated that this type of news seems to provoke the harmony between two sections of Indian society and can clearly create a rift between the people and showing hatred and malice towards Muslims. Reply dated 5.11.2019 by the broadcaster Broadcaster stated that the said caption “Janmabhumi Hamaari, Ram Hamaare, Masjid Waale Kahan Se Padhare” was not something that was coined and invented by the news channel especially for the purpose of telecast. Rather, the same was taken out of the discussion that took place in the courtroom during the course of hearing of the civil appeal in the Ayodhya dispute. Also, the premise of the arguments put by the Hindu Mahasabha before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was based on the same idea which the caption speaks of and which has been reiterated by them before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The channel therefore has done nothing wrong but reproduced an argument that was already part of the record. Further the said caption was enclosed within two inverted commas (‘ ’) which affirms the fact that it was reproduction of a statement/an argument made by someone which was quoted by the channel. Further reply dated 5.11.2019 by complainant The complainant stated that he was not satisfied with the response. The broadcaster did not acknowledge that using these hate speeches as headlines in shows using "quotations" is wrong or right. Freedom of press is essential but using provocative speeches as debate show headlines are clearly provocative, and is biased. No one can spread hate against anyone using freedom of speech. Even if those speeches were made in courtroom. Further reply dated 25.11.2019 by the broadcaster The broadcaster vide email dated 25.11.2019 stated that “…..with respect to the image mentioning “Janambhoomi Hamari Ram Hamare Masjid Wale Kahan Se Padhare” was promoted only on social media. With respect to the image/program “Muslim Mukt Bharat”, the complaint relates to an old feed of November, 2018 and the alleged program which was broadcast at the time when UP government was changing names of the cities e.g- Allahabad to Prayagraj, Faizabad to Ayodhya etc. In the alleged program nothing was shown against any particular religion or a community which could be termed as creating animosity or hatred towards anyone.

6.12.2019
NBSA considered the complaint and the response of the broadcaster. NBSA noted that since the broadcaster confirmed that the image mentioning “Janambhoomi Hamari Ram Hamare Masjid Wale Kahan Se Padhare” was promoted only on social media, NBSA could not proceed further with the complaint as the content available on social media did not fall within the jurisdiction of the NBSA. Therefore, it could not proceed to any take action under the NBSA Regulations. NBSA, therefore decided to close the complaints and inform the broadcaster and the complainant accordingly.

The complaint was regarding telecast of a debate programme on News 24 on 1.8.2019, in connection with a controversy relating to a Zomato delivery boy.

23.9.2019
NBSA considered the complaint, response from the broadcaster and counter responses of both the broadcaster and the complainant and also viewed the footage of the alleged broadcast. NBSA noted that while persuing the footage , it did not find the words “khalid tum muslman ho aur q ki tum muslamn ho esleye pandit ajay gautam tumhe dekhnge nahe aur apne aako per petti band lenge” in the footage of the programme. NBSA observed that the complaint related to observations made after the broadcast of the programme and was not part of the broadcast, which is admitted by the complainanat in his reply, he states “ it is further submitted that under the impression that program was over and finished, in response of the fun/joke made by the anchor I covered my eyes and show was finished. It is further submitted that after finish the show normally all guest and anchor make little bit fun and talk about the debate in healthy atmosphere’. NBSA further also noted that contents of a tweet does not fall in the jurisdiction of NBSA. After consideration of the above, NBSA decided that it only deals with complaints with regard to violation of the NBA Code of Ethics and Regulations and that its scrutiny is limited to content broadcast on the member channels. Since the alleged observations were made after the broadcast, NBSA was not in a position to ascertain the authenticity, vericity of the complaint and proceed under its regulations. NBSA decided to close the complaint with the above observations and inform the MoI&B, complainant and the broadcaster accordingly.

NBSA considered the letter forwarded by the MoI&B and noted the suggestion given by Mr. Sharad C. Kapadia, President, Surat Citizens’ Council Trust, Surat “that the source of every news item should be compulsorily disclosed along with the name of reporter/agency and his/its email id .’

23.9.2019
NBSA considered the letter and concluded that the suggestion cannot be agreed to. NBSA noted that the broadcaster/s, prior to airing contents received from third party source/s, are required to verify the contents. In the event unverified content is aired by the broadcaster, and complaints are received, action is taken under the NBSA regulations against the broadcaster/s. NBSA decided to close the complaint with the above observations and inform the MoI&B accordingly.