The complaint against Zee News is in regard to an objectionable debate programme aired by it on 2.8.2020 on the issue of Ayodhya and Lord Rama. The complainant stated that he was invited by the broadcaster to participate in a panel discussion on the issue of Ayodhya and Lord Ram. However, the complainant stated that, unfortunately, or deliberately, the anchor of the show, Shri Sachin, let the debate degenerate into an abusive slanging match. The complainant referred to BJP spokesperson, Shri Sambit Patra, who was another panelist on the show, who started the debate by making irrelevant remarks and allegations, diverting from the subject. The complainant stated that while it was stated in advance that Lord Ram was beyond politics and was a question of faith. However, Mr. Sambit Patra at once entered into politics by bringing in the issue of Congress and Lord Ram. Further, on several occasions, the complainant stated that he was not allowed to make his point or complete his reply to the various innuendo and wild allegations against Congress, which were irrelevant to the theme announced. The complainant reiterated that he repeatedly reminded the anchor that politics was not to be discussed while discoursing the world’s greatest epic, Ramayana and Lord Ram, who is internationally respected and honoured. Further, he stated in the latter part of the debate threatening remarks were made against the complainant and the Congress Party by panelists who were brought into the panel. The debate was declared over without giving him the right to reply or opportunity to make his full statement. The complainant stated that within few hours of reaching home after the debate, he started receiving abusive and threatening calls about the statements which were allegedly attributed to him and captioned in his name on the screen despite the fact that such remarks were not made by the complainant. The complainant reiterated that within the next 72 hours, he received over a dozen calls from unknown persons from all parts of India, which were clearly intimidating. Therefore, he requested the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to develop a protocol for online debate so that the speakers are not intimidated and are falsely accused, and strict actions are taken against the concerned for hampering the status of the guest/speaker. He also requested for protection and stated that if anything were to happen to him, the responsibility of it would lie with the Zee anchor, show manager and the channel itself.

18.2.2021
NBSA considered the complaint and viewed the footage of the broadcast. NBSA noted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Mahesh Narayan Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. had laid down guidelines pertaining to the role of anchor in a news programme in particular their duty to prevent the programme from drifting beyond permissible limits. Since, the present complaint raised similar grievances against the anchor, NBSA decided that the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Court should be circulated to the broadcaster to ensure compliance. NBSA further observed that the editorial team and the anchor must be careful while inviting panelists who habitually makes inflammatory remarks during news programme. NBSA decided to close the complaint with the aforesaid observations and inform the MoI&B and the broadcaster accordingly.

The complaint relates to violations and non-adherence of the NBA/NBSA Guidelines, Code of Ethics by TV media.

18.2.2021
The complaint was considered by the NBSA at its meeting held on 18.2.2021. NBSA decided that the complaint should be circulated to Members and Editors of NBA for their information.

The complaint is against Sun TV for a news report aired by it on 2.12.2020 at 7:30 AM regarding the Covid vaccine., which was not subsequently aired after the first broadcast at 7:30 AM on.2.12.2020. The complaint alleged that the headline of the news report stated that the “Central Govt. had announced that everyone will not be getting the Covid vaccine”. In the impugned news report, a clip was aired, which showed a Government official saying that the Government did not assure of a vaccine, which the complainant stated appears to be a small clip from some press conference. The complainant stated that news report such as the one aired by the broadcaster could have created panic among the general public and uneducated public living in remote areas of this state and should be severely dealt with. She stated that the news report was deliberately aired to bring a bad name to the Government and therefore requested the respective authorities to offer a clear statement before this news is misinterpreted. The broadcaster, in its response dated 28.12.2020, denied the averments raised by the complainant. Neither was the impugned news report misleading nor was it intended to bring a bad name to the Government. The impugned news report, included the actual byte/statement made by the Union Health Secretary, while briefing the reporters in Delhi. In the press conference he stated that the Government had never spoken about vaccinating the entire country. It merely quoted the statement made by Mr. Bhushan, “I just want to make this clear that the Government has never spoken about vaccinating the entire country. It’s important that we discuss such scientific issues, based on factual information only.” and no personal views and/or comments were added by the broadcaster. Furthermore, the broadcaster stated that this news was also published by several leading newspapers.

18.2.2021
NBSA considered the complaint, the response from the broadcaster and viewed the footage/CD of the broadcast. NBSA found no violation of any Standards or Guidelines in the broadcast and therefore decided that no action was called for on the complaint. NBSA, decided to close the complaint and inform the MoI&B and the broadcaster accordingly.

The complainant alleged that Aaj Tak channel in its news bulletin dated 14.10.2020, blatantly violated the orders of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court "In re: Right To Decent & Dignified Last Rites/Cremation" in the Hathras case. The complainant stated that in the order, the Hon’ble High Court had directed the respondents to maintain complete confidentiality about the CBI investigation in the case. The order stated that “the State administration is directed to ensure the safety and security of the family members of the victim so that no harm is caused to them. It is further provided that the inquiry/investigation which is being carried on in the matter, either by the S.I.T. or by any other agency such as CBI, be kept in full confidentially and no report or post thereof is leaked out in public." However, the broadcaster on 14.10.2020 aired a news report about the Hathras case and the ongoing CBI investigation, a video of which was also shared on social media platform Twitter through the official handle of Aaj Tak (which is @aajtak) on the same date at 20:53 PM. The complainant stated that in the impugned news programme, the broadcaster brazenly violated the order of the Hon’ble High Court by reporting on the investigation of the CBI in the Hathras case and by reporting about the questions asked by the CBI team to the victim's family during the investigation. Therefore, he requested that urgent cognizance be taken of this issue and appropriate action initiated against the broadcaster for non-compliance with the orders of the Hon'ble Court. The broadcaster, in its response dated 7.12.2020, stated that it has at no point in time violated any directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The broadcaster reiterated that it had not violated the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court in the suo moto proceedings and, more particularly, the Order dated 12th October 2020. The broadcaster submitted that it was their news channel that had brought to the public domain the dastardly acts and crime, which is now known as the Hathras Case and consequently the Hon’ble High Court had initiated suo moto proceedings, Further, it stated that the matter was taken up on various dates, including on 12.10.2020, when the Hon’ble High Court passed various directions on several issues. The broadcaster submitted that in the order, there was no direction passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad prohibiting any reportage by the media in relation to the said case. However, the Hon’ble High Court had solemnly requested that the reportage should not be of a particular kind (i.e., it should not disturb social harmony or infringe on the rights of the victim’s family and that of the Accused). Further, it submitted application bearing No. 62039 of 2020 seeking restraint on media reporting of the issue was made. was disposed of by the Ld. Division Bench held that the directions contained in the order dated 12.10.2020 were already passed and that media while reporting on the incident should be guided by the observations of various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the broadcaster reiterated that there was no prohibition from reporting about the incident or the investigation, subject to the restrictions pointed out in the orders mentioned hereinabove. The complaint referred to a news broadcast that was uploaded on the Twitter Handle of the news channel on 14.10.2020. It stated that on 13.10.2020, the CBI interrogated the family members of the deceased victim, and the impugned programme was essentially an interview of the brother of the deceased victim as to what was being questioned to him during the investigation. The broadcaster reiterated that the impugned broadcast was an interview of 03:02 minutes with the brother of the deceased victim, and no content in the said interview could even remotely cause ‘disturbance in social harmony’ or be construed as ‘an infringement upon the rights of the victim’s family or that of the Accused’. Even the complaint does not assert that any of the said occurrences took place due to the said broadcast. The broadcaster stated that it was their understanding that there was never any prohibition per-se from reporting on the investigation or the case. The complainant has misconstrued the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, and the portion of the order referred to in the complaint also does not deal with media reporting.

18.2.2021
NBSA considered the complaint, response from the broadcaster and viewed footage of the broadcast. NBSA noted that the present complaint relates to media reportage of an ongoing criminal investigation in the Hathras rape case. NBSA decided that the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Mahesh Narayan Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors should be circulated to the broadcaster to ensure compliance while reporting on any ongoing criminal investigation/ related matters. NBSA, decided to close the complaint with the aforesaid observation and inform the MoI&B and the broadcaster accordingly.

The complainant alleged that in the programme, the anchor Mr Rahul Shiv Shankar praised China’s might by stating that the economic capacity of China was five times that of India, and he also praised the Chinese military power. The complainant stated that such reporting reminded him of a similar display of surrender mentality in 1962 when American Senator Sam Harrison made a famous statement that " Indians made a sorry display of themselves, by allowing themselves to be driven out of the impregnable mountain strongholds". The complainant stated that the only way to save India and to protect its territorial integrity would be by having the courage to say that India has no borders with China and that Tibet is always a free nation and also opposed the occupation of Eastern Turkistan. The broadcaster, in its response dated 6.11.2020 submitted that on 12.9.2020, its channels Mirror Now and Times Now had aired a programme titled ‘Converse India with Rahul Shivashankar, a discussion programme hosted by the Editor-in-Chief of Times Now on prominent issues and had panelists, who are experts in their respective fields, discuss and deliberate on the topic chosen for the day, i.e. the India-China border stand-off. In the backdrop of the meeting between the Foreign Ministers of both India and China in Moscow, this discussion focused on key issues, namely, “Is India talking from the position of strength?” “Will the talks lead to a thaw?” “Is China rattled by India’s tenacity?” The broadcaster stated that it was during the discussions one of its esteemed guest Major Gen. G. D. Bakshi (Retd), Defense Analyst while responding to a specific question raised by the host on the views expressed by another guest Mr. Ajai Shukla, Defense Journalist stated that “the Chinese GDP being five times yours….the Chinese defense budget being four times yours………..but the simple fact is they cannot deploy their entire force levels against you……..I think we can match them and we have matched them…………”. The broadcaster submitted that the aforesaid references were made by Major Gen. Bakshi, only to strongly submit his view that India cannot be taken lightly by China in this standoff. The broadcaster asserted that the complainant wrongfully attributed the independent view and remark made by a participant to the channel(s) and its representatives and has also unfairly referred to such remarks as being an act of cowardice by the channels. The complainant has misread the entire discussion, and it appears that he has hastily concluded that the channel has encouraged such a point of view. The topic chosen for discussion was a prominent current issue of national importance. The news broadcast saw several viewpoints being put forth by the guests invited. There was no instance of any unwarranted praise of China’s might or strength viz-a-viz India in the context of the ongoing stand-off at the LAC. The reference to such remarks made by Gen Bakshi while making his point has been totally misconstrued by the complainant.

18.2.2021
NBSA considered the complaint, the response from the broadcaster and viewed the footage of the broadcast. NBSA found no violation of any Standards or Guidelines in the broadcast and therefore decided that no action was called for on the complaint. NBSA, decided to close the complaint and inform the MoI&B and the broadcaster accordingly.

Ms. Dipika R. Kaura, Editor member representing the broadcaster in NBSA (CNN News18), being an interested party, recused herself from the proceedings. The complaint is against a news programme aired by CNN News18 channel regarding its coverage of fuel supply to the Indian Army at LAC. The complainant stated that the impugned news programme might be a security issue as it was in the case of the Mumbai attack, which was telecasted live. The broadcaster, in its response dated 19.10.2020, submitted that the entire coverage of fuel supply to the Indian Army at LAC was facilitated by the Indian Army, including locations shown in the impugned programme. Moreover, no part of the news programme disclosed any sensitive or secret information, and the Indian Army was completely aware of the content of the impugned news programme. Further, it submitted that it has always ensured compliance with all rules and regulations applicable to news channels, and the news story in question did not violate any codes.

18.2.2021
NBSA considered the complaint, the response from the broadcaster and viewed the footage/CD of the broadcast. NBSA found no violation of any Standards or Guidelines in the broadcast and therefore decided that no action was called for on the complaint. NBSA, decided to close the complaint and inform the MoI&B and the broadcaster accordingly.

The complaint is against the news programme Aaj Ki Baat aired on India TV at 21:00 PM. The complainant alleged that during the middle of the news programme, the anchor, before taking a break for telecasting a commercial advertisement, much to the surprise and astonishment of the complainant, said "25-second ka Ek sponsored message". The complainant questions how the broadcaster can refer to a “commercial advertisement” as a “sponsored message”. The complainant alleged that this self-made style pronouncement of the broadcaster was not only unconventional, weird, but it also sounded idiosyncratic and freakish to the complainant. The complainant questioned whether the broadcaster was attempting to fool its viewers, including the complainant. He requested such practice to be stopped immediately. The complainant alleged that in order to boost its tumbling viewership, the broadcaster started some funny scheme of "India TV Dekho lakho ka sona jeeto contest", wherein the broadcaster asks some simple stupid questions to be answered by the viewers. The complainant hoped that the broadcaster was wise enough to obtain necessary permission and approvals from the concerned government department and agencies to float the scheme of “Sona Jeeto contest”. The complainant highlighted one specific instance of such kind of reporting, i.e., the interview of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal. The interview appeared to be a promotional event and an attempt to glorify the efforts of the interviewee and appeared to be a paid interview, in which the anchor merely asked pre-decided, pre-planned simple and irrelevant questions. The complainant wondered how the anchor could omit to ask Mr. Arvind Kejriwal how his government dared to compare Sikkim, which is an integral part of our country, with Bhutan and Nepal in one of its public advertisement. The complainant called upon the broadcaster to (1) stop calling the "Telecast of commercial advertisement" as "Sponsored message" (2) to avoid and refrain itself from airing one-sided biased news reports; (3) to provide a copy of the permission obtained by the broadcaster from the concerned Government Department to float the “Sona Jeeto contest”. The broadcaster, in its response dated 9.7.2020, stated that the complaint, was ex-facie misdirected and misinformed. The contents of the complaint lacked objectivity and substance. The broadcaster stated that the complaint appears to be an attempt by the complainant to impose his whims and wishes upon the broadcaster without giving due respect to its right to freedom of speech and expression. The broadcaster asserted that the complainant has resorted to outright falsehood in regard to the content and programming broadcast on India TV news channel. The contents of the complaint are slanderous and insulting and it categorically and unequivocally deny all the allegations levelled in the said complaint. The broadcaster stated that it wishes to bring to the notice of the complainant that all news, reports broadcast on a news channel, including the views expressed by anchors, reporters, correspondent etc. including the mode, medium and way of expression fall within the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. The broadcaster responded to the objection raised by the complainant over the use of the word ‘sponsored message’ instead of ‘advertisement’ by stating that the manner of presentation, including the way of expression or use of particular terminology, is exercising one’s freedom of speech and expression and unless they violate any law for the time being in force or is otherwise incorrect, there is legally, morally and constitutionally no impediment on use of any word(s) of one’s own choice. The declaration/ statement made by the presenter/ anchor is in order to and with the intention of segregating the broadcast/ dissemination of information from paid content, and in the present case, the same is done by words ‘sponsored message’. Neither there is an embargo on the use of the words ‘sponsored message’ nor is the same misleading in any manner whatsoever. Without prejudice to above, the broadcaster stated that the term advertisement in common parlance means “a notice, message or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event”. The term sponsored message means “offers, promotions and business updates/ information about business activities and promotions”. Thus, as was apparent, there was neither any misinformation nor any misuse of the term “sponsored message”. The broadcaster reiterated that the term sponsored message was used only to segregate promotional material from news/ information broadcast. Therefore, objection, if any, is misplaced and misinformed. With respect to the objection related to the “Sona Jeeto Contest”, the broadcaster stated that there was no requirement for any permission under any law for the time being in force to run such contents, including but not limited to rules and guidelines. The contest was merely the broadcaster’s attempt to connect with its viewers, and well-received by the viewer’s. The broadcaster submitted that during a broadcast, especially a live debate, the anchor is free to ask any question as per his wisdom keeping in mind the time and other constraints. Such live programmes are neither scripted nor scrolled and, the baseless and unfounded allegation of it being a paid interview is nothing but an attempt to tarnish their image and goodwill. The same was defamatory, and the broadcaster stated that it reserves its right to take appropriate action in law for the same if, need so arises. Communication dated 25.7.2020 from complainant to NBSA and channel The complainant stated that a perusal of the reply received from the broadcaster reveals that it has responded to all the allegations levelled in the complaint by giving a single line reply that it "Freedom of speech and expression" guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. The complainant stated that most Indian television news channel's, anchors and presenters, including the one mentioned in the complaint, are nowadays involved in highly objectionable and shameful journalism, which should not be allowed at any cost in a civilized country and society like India. He accused the news broadcasters of not only brutally distorting and suppressing actual facts but also broadcasting materials as per their own convenience and choice under the garb of freedom of speech and expression provided under the Indian Constitution. The complainant alleged that most of the media houses in India today are under the pretext of freedom of speech and expression provided to them, making a mockery of the esteemed fourth pillar of our Constitution. "Media" by practising inferior, biased baseless and shameless journalism just for the sake of TRP and generating undue financial benefits, due to which the name and fame of our great country Bharat and the countrymen like the complainant was being tarnished, maligned internationally which should be stopped immediately by the intervention of NBSA The complainant alleged that there was no feeling of dignity, integrity and responsibility among most of the television news channel, including the broadcaster mentioned in the complaint, to give free, fair, unbiased and honest information of the news. Therefore, the complainant stated that it was high time for the concerned Government Departments, Authority and Forums like the NBSA to exercise vigilance and stop such dirty journalism, and strict guidelines and standards must be framed for the media at large, including print, electronic and digital media. The broadcaster, informed the Authority that a similar complaint dated 24.6.2020 was already made by the complainant to the broadcaster which was responded to on 9.7.2020. Further, an identical complaint raising the same concerns was also written by the complainant to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The broadcaster stated that in response to the complaint, it had reiterated the contents of the reply dated 9.7.2020. Furthermore, the broadcaster stated it appeared that the complainant has a grievance against news channels in general and has failed to highlight the specific details of the news program against which he has filed his complaint. Since the complainant failed to refer to a specific programme in his complaint, the broadcaster was sharing the details of its programme ‘Aaj Ki Baat’ wherein the term ‘sponsored’ was used.

18.2.2021
NBSA considered the complaint, the response from the broadcaster and viewed the footage of the broadcast. NBSA found no violation of any Standards or Guidelines in the broadcast and therefore decided that no action was called for on the complaint. NBSA, decided to close the complaint and inform the MoI&B and the broadcaster accordingly.

The complainant alleged that ABP Majha on 24.9.2020, broadcast news related to the newly passed Labour Bill. The complainant alleged that in the impugned news report, it was reported that the new Labour Bill passed by the Government permits companies to convert any permanent employee into a contract employee. The complainant questioned whether the information reported was correct and if it was not, he desired necessary action to be taken against the broadcaster as the topic of the news report was not only very sensitive but could also cause law and order problem in the country if the malicious, motivated propaganda against reforms was allowed to be aired on these channels. He further stated that as per the report, people might fear that their employers can just change their employment from permanent to contract as employees cannot appeal in court as the new law is employer supporting. The broadcaster, in its response dated 27.10.2020, stated that the news report referred to in the complaint was a news clip aired by the broadcaster on 24.9.2020 around 9:41 AM for a total duration of 2 minutes and 18 seconds. The broadcaster stated that the video clip was newsworthy as it related to the important development of the passing of three Labour Code Bills by the Parliament, namely the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, the Social Security Code and the Occupational Safety, Health & Working Conditions Code (OSH). It stated that the Wage Code Bill 2019 was passed by the Parliament last year. However, the same was not yet made effective as the Government planned to introduce all the four laws together. The broadcaster stated that it had not broadcast any malicious, motivated propaganda against the reforms as alleged by the complainant. On the contrary, the impugned news report was aired with due impartiality and transparency. It also highlighted the aspects, namely: (i) Government claims that organized and unorganized sectors will be benefitted by new labour laws, (ii) It shall be mandatory to give an appointment letter and details of salary to an employee and (iii) Mandatory health check-up of an employee once a year. The broadcaster stated that the impugned news report was aired with the aim to educate and spread awareness among its viewers about an important development of the passing of the said 3 Labour Code bills and its interpretations, and the impugned news report in no manner was intended to spread fear or anxiety. Its viewers are well aware that their permanent jobs cannot be turned into contractual jobs overnight. Further, the broadcaster stated that it would also like to apprise the complainant on the fact that no provision of any Act/Statute is non-appealable before any Hon’ble Court having jurisdiction. The broadcaster submitted that while it appreciates the concerns and fears expressed by the complainant however, it was indisputable that the position showed in the impugned news report was based upon the actual proposed amendments and were presented in an objective manner. The broadcaster further stated that while the news may be disturbing, however, the remedy did not lie in shooting the messenger, the remedy against the consequences would be to take it before the appropriate authorities.

18.2.2021
NBSA considered the complaint, response from the broadcaster and viewed the footage of the broadcast. NBSA found no violation of any Standards or Guidelines in the broadcast and therefore decided that no action was called for on the complaint. NBSA, decided to close the complaint and inform the MoI&B and the broadcaster accordingly.

The complainant has stated that it has become common practice by the media nowadays to describe soldiers who are killed in action as martyrs. KIA, for Killed in Action, is a term used by the armed forces, and the armed forces alone, the world over and it carries with it all the solemnity and dignity the sacrificial act of a soldier who falls in battle deserves. Calling KIA martyrdom amounts to undermining the bravery of the soldier while courting death in battle. English language does not really have another phrase that is synonymous with KIA and can convey the true sense of gravity and honour it carries. They do however have an Indian word, 'Veer Gati’, which accurately manifests the sense. The word translates to 'brave death' or 'death of the brave'. Perhaps those who rate KIA as lacking in intensity to convey the death of a soldier in battle could adopt this Indian word, if they wish to hive an alternate expression.

18.2.2021
NBSA noted that the issues raised in the complaint by an organization of army veterans were valid. However, NBSA would not be in a position to take action on the complaint as it relates to the armed forces and it would be best addressed by the Army. NBSA decided that the complaint be forwarded to the Army, Ministry of Defence for a response. NBSA, decided to inform the MoI&B accordingly”

The complaint filed against a news programme aired on Aaj Tak news channel 27.8.2020 at 19:00 PM. In the programme, a 100 minutes TV-interview of Rhea Chakraborty, one of the suspected accused in the death-case of film-actor Sushant Singh Rajput, was aired, followed by comments of Advocate Vikas Singh, representing the father of Sushant Singh Rajput, on the interview. The complainant stated that it was against all moral ethics of media for the broadcaster to air the interview and soon after another competitive TV channel had done the same in its prime-time show at 9 PM. The complainant stated that the fight of TV channels in the unhealthy competition for more TRP should be limited to TV channels only, and it must not drag viewers by dictating what they can see and cannot see. The complainant further asserted that not only have the TV anchors started playing the role of self-termed judges, but they had also become panelists by overreacting and using loud voice. The complainant attributed this behaviour as the reason why private Indian TV news-channels were losing popularity amongst TV viewers. He suggested that the time has come for the Central government to make it compulsory for every private TV news-channel to compulsorily telecast one prime-time news-bulletin of Doordarshan. Further, all Doordarshan channels, including DD News, Lok Sabha TV and Rajya Sabha TV, should be compulsorily given initial slot in numbering by Cable-TV and Dish-TV operators to make these channels of positivity become more popular. The broadcaster, in its response dated 19.10.2020, denied all the allegations made against it by the complainant. The broadcaster stated that the unfortunate and untimely demise of film actor, late Mr. Sushant Singh Rajput has emerged as a sensitive topic for the entire country, and it was the broadcaster’s duty to do a detailed coverage so as to provide information to the public at large about the alleged suicide of the actor and other related cases that have come up. The broadcaster submitted that it believes in the notion of journalistic objectivity and thinks that it is important to bring both sides of the coin to the viewers. Accordingly, the broadcaster stated that the said interview was also conducted for the viewers to see both sides of the Sushant Singh Rajput story that was unfolding with new facts every day. The broadcaster submitted that the objective behind airing the impugned programme was not to garner TRP or sensationalize the news as alleged in the complaint but to only show the veracity of the matter to its viewers and that its anchors try their best to assert the truth while covering such news. The broadcaster stated that it was never their intention to stand in the way of justice, demean any individual or interfere in the proceedings of the Court in any matter whatsoever.

18.2.2021
NBSA considered the complaint, response from the broadcaster and viewed footage of the broadcast. NBSA noted that the present complaint relates to media reportage of the criminal investigation into the death of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput. NBSA decided that the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Mahesh Narayan Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. should be circulated to the broadcaster to ensure compliance while reporting on any ongoing criminal investigation/ related matters. NBSA decided to close the complaint with the aforesaid observations and inform the MoI&B and the broadcaster accordingly.