18.3.2023 The complaint was in respect of a broadcast titled “Assembly's Motion To Punish BBC | Free Speech Hypocrisy Exposed | Will Lutyens BBC Bhakts Speak Up?”. In the complaint it was alleged that the anchor was actively trying to promote the resolution passed by the Gujarat Government and had failed to report the key developments informing public opinion on the government’s assault on free speech. He stated that the reporting followed a pattern of overwhelmingly demanding accountability for vague and amorphous charges from the vaguely defined “Ecosystem”, which consists of individuals who have repeatedly questioned the government.

6.7.2023
6.7.2023 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 noted 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 cannot condone the delay of 16 days on the part of the complainant in escalating the complaint to the Authority. NBDSA 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.

1.4.2023 NBDSA considered the complaint and the response from the broadcaster and noted that the complainant’s grievance was regarding the use of the term “Dalit” before his name in the impugned article hosted on the broadcaster’s website. NBDSA noted that the broadcaster had, in its response dated 28.4.2023 and 5.6.2023, stated that it had, in the exercise of its editorial prudence and journalistic good faith, updated the publication. Thereafter vide email dated 5.6.2023 the complainant was informed of the action taken, to which no reply was received.

6.7.2023
6.7.2023 NBDSA, therefore decided that since no response was received from the complainant and the broadcaster has taken corrective action by updating the article, it was presumed that the complainant was satisfied with the action taken by the broadcaster. Therefore, no further action was required in the complaint. Accordingly, NBDSA decided to close the complaint and inform the complainant and broadcaster accordingly.

20.3.2023 The complaint related to a news report aired on 8.03.2023 regarding judgment dated 08.03.2023 pronounced by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in a case filed by Asianet news channel seeking police protection. It was alleged that the news channel had aired a distorted version of the news.

6.7.2023
6.7.2023 NBDSA held that the complaint was time-barred as it was filed beyond the period of limitation. NBDSA, therefore, could not entertain the same on merits and decided to dismiss the complaint.

8.11.2022 Complaint dated 8.11.2022: The complainant alleged that in the impugned broadcast, the broadcaster had violated Fundamental Principle Number 4, Principle Number 1, 2 of Self-Regulation pertaining to Impartiality and Objectivity in reporting and Ensuring Neutrality and other guidelines for reporting on court procedures. He stated that the controversial public issues raised in the broadcasts pertained to due process, fake news, the intent to publishing fake news, the maligning of India and the evasion of probes and Nationalism. Further, in the broadcasts, the following Interest Groups, namely, BJP, Amit Malviya, the Wire, the malign India ecosystem and pen-wielding naxals, could be identified. In the broadcasts, there was selective reporting on the issue of intent and hypocrisy or selective outrage of a specific interest group. Adherence to due process was only reported to promote the point of view that there is no false prosecution. The broadcast followed a pattern of reporting the news to establish binary and selective patterns for the opinion of one interest group. He stated that the charge that the prosecution followed a pattern of harassing journalists, which is accounted for by multiple journalists who have reported news critical of the BJP administration and have been arrested by the state police without adherence to due process, usually under charges regarding undermining democracy/ defaming of India/ acting against the interest of the state, all of which collectively are prejudicial to national integration, similar legal and political charges were being placed against the Wire. However, to dismiss the opinion that the Wire is being prosecuted, as alleged by the vague and ominous ‘malign India ecosystem’, the broadcaster provided extensive context for the same by demonstrating patterns of selective outrage, hypocrisies of the ‘ecosystem’, while ignoring the context that account for the allegations of unfair prosecution, as stated herein above. The lack of impartiality in the broadcast is evident from a comparison of the questions asked to the BJP, where they were given time and space to respond in a manner that provides context and establishes nuance around their acts of omission and commission so that binary, narrow and consequently polarizing intent cannot be ascribed to them. The complainant drew the attention of the Authority to the screen titles/tickers which were aired during the following broadcasts : Broadcast 1 –titled “The Wire Plays Victim Card | Attempt To Evade Probe On Fake News By Citing ‘Rights’? | India Upfront” Broadcast 2 titled “ The Wire Fakery Exposed | Playing Victim Card To Dodge Investigation? |Blueprint Explosive Exclusive” Broadcast 3 -titled Crackdown Against 'The Wire' After FIR | 'Fakery' Fine But Probe Witch-hunt? | The Newshour Agenda In the broadcasts, the broadcaster linked the Wire to a political ecosystem, adversely affecting their standing as a journalistic body. While an anchor on another primetime channel had quite literally spread fake news, and the same was acknowledged by the broadcaster; however, this fact was not promoted to the viewers in the impugned broadcast. Instead, a different spin of being a far more subjective issue of religious sentiment was given. Reply dated 4.1.2023 from the broadcaster The broadcaster stated that the complainant has raised frivolous allegations against it regarding the non-compliance of the Guidelines issued by the Authority. In the complaint, the conduct of reputed anchors and journalists have been questioned without reviewing the context and entirety of the topic being debated and also the right of the media to raise difficult questions on relevant and current events in the country. That such an attempt not only undermines the editorial freedom of the channel but casts baseless aspersions on the credibility of reputed anchors and journalists appearing on the Respondent channel and must be outrightly deprecated. The impugned debate programmes are in the nature of ‘live’ show that invite comments/views and responses from various guests/speakers, and experts on a specific, pointed and focused issue. In the debate, an equitable platform is provided for the panellists to express their views freely. In a live news debate, the panellists invariably raise connected issues and multiple perspectives and opinions are put forth and dissected, which is essential for a free debate on the chosen topic. The debate raises questions and issues that have gained public importance and are of national interest in the recent past and have an impact on the nation and the public. The programmes impugned in the complaint did not violate any Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards (Code of Ethics) and/or Guidelines in any manner whatsoever, as alleged or otherwise. The debates in question must be viewed in the context of the questions raised. In the complaint, selected comments made by the anchor(s) have been highlighted to level the allegations of bias; the complainant appears to be targeting the anchor(s) in their capacity as journalists. The complaint focuses only on one side of the spectrum and does not appreciate that a counter argument is equally relevant, important and critical for viewers to form their opinions, specifically when popular beliefs and criticisms are challenged. Viewers have a right to know an alternative argument to such popular beliefs on significant matters. Raising pertinent, strong, pointed questions cannot be brushed aside with the allegation that they ‘peddle a narrative’. A perusal of the debate programmes would show that neither any favouritism was done for any political party nor was any political party attacked. It vehemently denied that biased coverage was done to favour any particular political. It was denied that the reporting of the journalist/anchors violated Fundamental Principle No. 4 , Principle No. 2 of self-regulation under the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards and Specific Guidelines for Reporting Court Proceedings as alleged or otherwise or at all. The channel or the anchors have not violated any guidelines or regulations by way of such debates as alleged or otherwise or at all. The debates were conducted in an open and objective manner and did not cause any incitement of communal bias or influence or mislead the viewers in any manner whatsoever. The aforesaid programmes by no stretch of the imagination can be deemed to have been made on selective and biased coverage or have outraged religious feelings of any class or community, statement creating or promoting enmity or promoting enmity, hatred or ill- will between classes or violated any provisions of the Code of Ethics. Further, no programme was made to propagate a particular political or religious ideology or against any political belief. The broadcaster relied on various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of its submissions. It further stated that the impugned programmes merely reflected the various facets of the topic being reported and must not be viewed in isolation but in the overall context of the subject being discussed. The reporting was factually correct and of public importance, thus, no prejudice was caused to any specific community or religion under any circumstances whatsoever. The choice of a news debate is entirely editorial discretion. The topics chosen were the recent incidents in the nation. There was no cherry-picking and interest groups being served by such debates. Such allegations were motivated and the complainant has cherry-picked statements made in the debate to push an agenda. Furthermore, a comment, sentence or stanza or the programme as a whole may be independent, bold, and even exaggerated. Mere exaggeration, however gross may be, would not make a comment unfair, if not founded by malafide. The object and context of the programme can be understood only by viewing the programme in totality and not by picking and choosing words and sentences out of context and reading them in a literal sense, as has been done by the complainant. The programme was not intended to polarize citizens, spread negative propaganda, or encourage violence against any class of people in the country/ society. That actions or comments made by public figures are often subjected to intensive and invasive dissection by all members of the public, due care thus must be exercised by such public figures before commenting. In the impugned broadcasts, an unbiased debate on the concept of fake news spread by one news website namely “The Wire”, which was concealed from the viewers was conducted. The debate and discussion were carried out based on facts available in public domain and constituted fair reporting, done with bona fide intention. The debate was held in consonance with the principles of journalism, and the anchor took all necessary measures to avoid controversy. The anchors did not make any statements that would create controversy. The anchors have always limited themselves to journalistic principles and acted in good faith. The first impugned broadcast was a debate, wherein the admission by the Wire Magazine and its senior journalists that they hadn’t done due diligence in their reportage, which ended up denting India’s image adversely was discussed. The anchor highlighted that the Wire is playing the victim card by claiming the police hadn’t followed due process. The anchor mentioned that he did not want to label his fellow journalists, and it’s the court's prerogative to decide. The panellists later discussed the pattern where few people treat other reporters and journalists differently. In the second impugned broadcast, the legal troubles of the Wire’s founders after the FIR had been filed was discussed. The anchor discussed how an entire lobby gave them a clean chit after the alleged forgery. She also highlighted how Mr. Vardharajan, who initially claimed his involvement in the story, backed out, and only Mr Devash Kumar was getting blamed. While talking about searches conducted by the police, the anchor mentioned that we have to wait until the police give their statement. In the third impugned broadcast, a discussion in respect of searches that were carried out at the residence of two editors of The Wire in connection with an FIR registered against the portal related to fake stories on the complaint of BJP’s IT Cell head, was conducted. The anchor further discussed that by showing a couple of communications initially that Mr.Siddharth Varadarajan stands by the stories even though a number of people had told him this piece is fake. The panellist later discussed that instead of calling the search a vendetta, a legal process was supposed to take place against those who are anti-establishment. These observations were not only neutral but also objective in nature. The broadcaster stated in the exercise of its fundamental right envisaged under Article 19(1)(a) telecasted the said debate programmes. There was no violation of any Code or any other rules and regulations. Thus, the present complaints were not legally sustainable, hence need to be rejected outrightly.

12.5.2023
12.5.2023 NBDSA considered the complaint, response from the broadcaster and also gave due consideration to the submissions of the complainant and the broadcaster and viewed the footage of the broadcast. NBDSA observed that the impugned broadcasts were related to an alleged fake news story published by the Wire. In the broadcasts, panel discussions were conducted and an opportunity was given to all the panelists to express their views on the subject of the broadcast. In view of the above, NBDSA found no violation of the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting and/or Guidelines in the broadcast. NBDSA decided to close the complaint and inform the complainant and the broadcaster accordingly.

3.11.2022 A complaint was filed in respect of four broadcasts titled “The Wire Accepts ‘Fake News’ Against Modi Government. Wrote to Malign India? India Upfront”, “The Wire’s Fabricated Stories Spark Row. Why’s Lobby Not Calling out ‘Fraud’? Newshour Debate”, “The Wire now forced to Confess Fraud. Why Empower Indian Baiters? Newshour Agenda” and “The Wire’s ‘Apology’ to Readers, Its Victimhood and Indulgence in Self-Glory” which were aired on 27.10.2022 and against the broadcast titled “PM Modi Alerts India on Fake News. Is Wire attempting to Malign Nations Image? India Upfront” which was aired on 28.10.2022 for violating the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards. In the complaint, it was alleged that by promoting the opinions, beliefs or desires of one side i.e., the one held by the BJP that the dissidents are politically motivate and their actions seek to undermine the integrity of India and malign the country, the broadcaster had violated Fundamental Principle No.4 and the Principles 1 and 2 of Self-Regulation relating to Impartiality and Objectivity and Ensuring Neutrality. However, since there was a delay on the part of the complainant in escalating the complaint to NBDSA, an application seeking condonation of delay was filed by the complainant under Regulation 8.2 of the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Regulations. In the application dated 5.1.2023, the complainant stated that the delay in filing the complaint was due to an inadvertent error. Therefore, he requested the Authority to take a lenient view in the matter, in light of the principles of natural justice and the fact that the delay in escalating the complaint was not significant. The broadcaster in its reply dated 5.1.2023 to the application for condonation of delay filed by the complainant stated that the Authority should strictly view the delay in filing as non-compliance of Regulation 8.2.

12.5.2023
12.5.2023 NBDSA considered the application seeking condonation of delay filed by the complainant and the response thereof received from the broadcaster. NBDSA noted that since the complainant had failed to satisfactorily explain the delay of 15 days in escalating the complaint before the Authority under Regulation 8.2 of the NBDSA Regulations and 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 rejected the application seeking condonation of delay and decided to dismiss the complaint . NBDSA decided to inform the complainant and the broadcaster accordingly.

25.11.2022 As decided by NBDSA the complainant was informed vide email dated 16.12.2022 that since the present complaint had been filed beyond the period of seven days from the date of the first broadcast as prescribed under Regulation 8.1.6, the complaint was barred by limitation and the Authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing of the complaint at the first level of grievance redressal. On receipt of the above email of NBDSA, complainant vide email dated 16.12.2022 filed its following reply: That he had filed the grievance within 7 working days from the time of broadcast. He stated that Section 1 (Definitions) and Paragraph 2 of 8.1.6 of the Regulations does not clarify whether the term “days” refers to working days or includes non-working days too. Therefore, considering the lack of clear definition for the term “days” in the Regulations, and considering the nature of the violations committed by the channel, the complainant urged NBDSA to accept my complaint as it was filed within 7 (working) days. The broadcaster vide its email dated 28.12.2022, stated that NBDSA has held the complaint to be barred by limitation and that authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing of the complaint at the first level of grievance redressal.

28.1.2023
28.1.2023 NBDSA considered the email dated 16.12.2022 of 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 the Regulations, no power has been conferred on the Authority to condone the delay at the first level of redressal. In so far as calculation of seven days is concerned, going by the plain language of the provision, NBDSA is of the opinion that it has to be seven continuous days from the date of the broadcast and not seven ‘working’ days, as no such stipulation of ‘working days’ has been mentioned in the provision. In view of the above, NBDSA 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.

1.10.2022 Complaint: The complaint dated 1.10.2022 was regarding several programmes aired on Times Now on 29.9.2022 between 8PM and 11 PM regarding certain unpleasant events in London (and elsewhere) during the Navratri festival. While the complainant condemned the said events as being deplorable and should not be allowed to recur. However, the Indian media which is widely seen in UK was only making this difficult. He relied on the observations made by OFCOM, in the past. of the Ofcom investigation, Times Global had “conducted extensive discussions with the current team, specifically drawing attention to Ofcom Rules and Guidance”. It had also taken steps to “conduct training programmes” for its news teams. The complainant stated that if the broadcaster had conducted training programs for its new teams, the results do not show it. In this regard, he stated that even the NBDSA had to instruct Times Now to take down two controversial debate episodes of India Upfront aired on 14.9.2020 and 23.9.2020 in respect of the February 2020 Delhi riots from their channel and YouTube page. NBDSA also declared that the anchors had “violated the Fundamental Principles as enumerated in the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards and various Guidelines issued by NBDSA”. The complainant stated that such debates damage our relations with friendly countries like UK and endanger the peaceful life of Hindus residing there. In the complaint dated 24.10.2022 filed with NBDSA, the complainant stated that by airing the impugned programme, the broadcaster had violated NBDSA’s Guidelines pertaining to Racial and Religious Harmony. Reply from the broadcaster: The broadcaster in its response dated 9.12.2022 denied the allegations made out against the channel with reference to the broadcasts aired on 29.9.2022 between 8PM to 11PM. It stated that being significant and noteworthy incident of public and national interest the Anti-Hindu protests that occurred in Birmingham, UK were highlighted during debates. The debates focused on certain videos that emerged showing targeted racist and communal hate and abuse made against Hindus in Birmingham. The debates merely raised questions on how this had been used in India in politically motivated blame game and how such attacks were not highlighted in the right perspective by the UK Media. Posing such questions in a media debate does not amount to affecting relations between the two countries. Valid questions were raised, and the issue was debated by a panel of guests who expressed their opinion and stand on the issue.

28.1.2023
28.1.2023 NBDSA considered the complaint, response from the broadcaster and also viewed the footage of the broadcasts. On a perusal of the broadcast, it observed that several versions of the incident were given during the telecasts. Therefore, NBDSA found no violation of the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards and the Specific Guidelines covering Reportage pertaining to Racial and Religious Harmony. NBDSA decided to close the complaint and inform the complainant and the broadcaster accordingly.

23.6.2022 Mr. Rajnish Ahuja, Editor member representing the broadcaster in NBDSA (Zee News), being an interested party, recused himself from the proceedings. The complaint and the response as given below was considered by NBDSA at its meeting held on 28.10.2022. Complaint: The Under Secretary, Election Commission of India [ECI], forwarded detailed report of confirmed cases of paid news related to electronic media mentioned regarding General Election to State Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 along with all supporting documents, as received from the CEO, Uttar Pradesh. He also stated that none of the candidates has preferred appeal against the Order of State level MCMC before ECI. With regard to Zee News, of news item “??? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????”, and news item “??? ?? ??? ????????? ?????? ???????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???????” Reply from broadcaster: The broadcaster in its reply dated 23.7.2022 stated: 1. That the clips aired on 29.1.2022 and 7.2.2022 were general news clip informing the general public that candidates of Hamirpur Constituency have filed their nomination. The impugned clips are of the candidates namely Ms. Manisha Anuragi of the Bhartiya Janta Party and Ms. Chandravati Verma of the Samajwadi Party going to file their nomination for the General Election to Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh, 2022. The said information was a general information and since Zee UP/UK is a regional channel, it covers such hyperlocal news for its viewers. 2. That as a responsible and neutral media house, it had covered the filing of nomination papers from both the major political parties of the region, being the BJP & SP, therefore it vehemently denies that the impugned clip could remotely be considered as paid news and such accusation/ allegation were completely false and devoid of any merit. Further, the said news clip in no manner influenced the general public or had the intention to influence the mind of the voters. It was unfortunate that the complainant had picked up a general news and information of certain candidates filing for nomination to malign a responsible news channel of telecasting “paid news”. 3. That after going through the annexures and documents shared by the complainant, the Election Commission (during its investigation) had failed to consider the statements made by the candidate and the reporter who have categorically denied the allegation and the amounts mentioned at S. No. 5 & 8 is only an estimation as per DIPR/DAVP rates and nowhere proves that such monies were paid to ZMCL. The broadcaster submitted that the compilation of the report was done through the local reporter of the channel which was based on interaction with people from all walks of the life by going to the constituency and also the annexures in the complaint. The program is available on social media, so in addition to the broadcast in issue. These episodes meet the highest standards of ethical and non-biased journalism.

28.10.2022
28.10.2022 NBDSA considered the complaint and the response from the broadcaster. 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. Therefore, 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. NBDSA decided to inform the Election Commission of India accordingly and close the matter.

3.2.2022 NBDSA at its meetings held on 31.5.2022 and 28.10.2022 had considered the complaint dated 3.2.2022 of Mr. Ram Kumar forwarded by the ECI regarding taming, curbing the tendency of spread of communal disharmony on news channels especially during the election period and the response dated 17.3.2022 from the broadcaster. NBDSA observed that there was merit in the complaint and that it too has observed an increasing use of divisive, derogatory, hurtful language and rhetoric in news programmes. NBDSA was of the view that use of such language and rhetoric in news programmes, not only violates the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards but also undermines the principle of secularism and equality which is the bedrock of the Indian Constitution. In view of the repetitive nature of such violations, NBDSA decided to issue an Advisory bringing to the attention of the Members, the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards, relevant NBDA/NBDSA Guidelines, judicial pronouncements and legislations which deal with Hate Speech, which the Members must bear in mind before broadcasting and/or publishing any news. NBDSA decided to close the complaint with the above observations and inform the ECI, complainant and the broadcaster accordingly.

28.10.2022
28.10.2022 / 31.5.2022 Accordingly, NBDSA issued the following Guidelines and Advisory (Attached) for compliance by Members.: 1. Specific Guidelines for Anchors conducting Programmes including Debates dated 28.10.2022. 2. Advisory regarding “Hate Speech”, dated 11.11.2022 3. Guidelines for Prevention of Hate Speech dated 30.1.2023 Members have also been informed that NBDSA would be closely monitoring the compliance of the above Guidelines & Advisory.

21.9.2022 Legal Notice (No. 235) dated 21.9.2022 from Mr. Saket S. Gokhale, Times Now - programme aired on 20.9.2022 Since the complainant was not satisfied with the response of the channel, he escalated the complaint to the second level i.e., NBDSA.

28.10.2022
28.10.2022 NBDSA considered Legal Notice dated 21.9.2022 issued by the complainant and the response dated 30.9.2022 of broadcaster. NBDSA noted that through the Legal Notice, the complainant (or Plaintiff) had inter alia, sought the payment of damages of ?2,00,00,000 for the alleged defamation and for the alleged extreme harm and injury caused to his reputation as a result of the actions of Respondent No. 1 the anchor of the impugned broadcast, failing which, he had stated that he shall initiate legal proceedings against the broadcaster and its anchor before the appropriate judicial authorities. Therefore, after keeping in mind the fact that the complainant has sought damages from the broadcaster and its anchor through the Legal Notice, it appears that the complainant is intending to initiate legal proceedings against the broadcaster and therefore, NBDSA does not deem it proper or appropriate to consider the complaint under the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Regulations, as the issues raised before it may be raised before a court of law. NBDSA therefore, decided to close the complaint and inform the complainant and the broadcaster.