What follows is excerpted from the second Bhasurendrababu Memorial Lecture, organised by True Dialogue Debates and delivered by former journalist R. Rajagopal in Alappuzha, south Kerala, on February 15. The commemoration of Bhasurendrababu — journalist and political commentator — was inaugurated by Vijoo Krishnan, General Secretary of the All India Kisan Sabha and CPI(M) Politburo member. This is not a full reproduction of the lecture, but an account drawn from it.

The purported legal documents and official letters featured here were sourced from CourtListener, part of the Free Law Project, a federally recognized non-profit organisation in the United States. CourtListener.com is a fully searchable and accessible archive of court data, including growing repositories of opinions, oral arguments, judicial financial records, and federal filings. Founded in 2010, Free Law Project uses technology, data, and advocacy to make the legal ecosystem more equitable and competitive.

On January 21 last month, at 3:28 p.m. EST — around 2 a.m. in India on January 22 — a series of documents appeared on CourtListener.com.

As many as 20 PDF files were uploaded. The files were attributed to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the American securities markets watchdog. To the best of available knowledge, neither the SEC — to which these documents are attributed — nor the Government of India, whose purported letters form part of the documents, has publicly contested their authenticity. These documents have remained in the public domain since January 21, 2026 (EST). Although the contents of the files are not legible on the presentation screen, the purpose here is not to dissect their details but to note that multiple documents entered the public domain on that day.

The issue relates to what is known in the United States as “service methods,” referred to in India as serving summons or notice to parties involved in a case. In this instance, the SEC sought to issue documents to Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani. The documents are linked to a civil case in which the SEC has levelled charges against Gautam Adani, chairman of Adani Green’s board of directors, and his nephew Sagar Adani, executive director of the same board. The Adanis have consistently denied all charges.

The SEC filed a motion requesting a New York court to set a date permitting alternative service of summonses to the defendants. Indian nationals cannot be directly served summonses by foreign agencies like the SEC; however, defendants may waive service if they choose. The SEC stated it had approached Gautam Adani’s counsel. Yet in April 2025, it noted that “neither defendant has agreed to waive service of the summons and complaint.” In the absence of such a waiver, foreign agencies in civil matters must route service through India’s Ministry of Law and Justice under the Hague Service Convention. This made the role of the Indian law ministry crucial.

A preliminary statement in the documents notes that while the SEC had filed charges, India’s Ministry of Law and Justice had twice refused service under the Hague Convention. Reports had earlier indicated that the Indian government was dragging its feet. What remained unknown until January 21 were the reasons cited by the ministry — and that the matter had effectively reached a dead end.

Among the 20 uploaded PDFs was a letter purportedly sent by the Indian law ministry to the SEC. For newsrooms accustomed to covering “sealed-cover” submissions by the Narendra Modi government, this letter could well have been manna from heaven. All that newspapers needed to do was seek confirmation from the law ministry regarding authenticity and, in the event of silence, publish the document while noting that the ministry had neither confirmed nor denied it.

The purported letter stated that the SEC’s forwarding letter “bears no seal and signature and the model form bears no seal of the requesting authority.” On this basis, the Indian ministry returned the documents to the SEC.

The SEC responded, writing to the Indian ministry that the Hague Convention does not mandate a seal or signature on the forwarding cover letter. It maintained that its requests complied with the Convention. The Hague Service Convention, the SEC argued, does not require a seal or signature on the forwarding cover letter, nor does the Model Form require a seal. The watchdog resent the request.

The SEC further cited The Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention, stating that demanding a seal and stamp is erroneous and that certification is not required on the Model Form or accompanying documents.

According to the SEC, the Convention only requires the Model Form to be signed by a competent individual. Its requests met these criteria, and the optional cover letter, it argued, should not have been grounds for return.

The SEC’s cover letter was displayed — its second page unsigned — one of the reasons cited by the Indian ministry for returning the request. The SEC countered that the cover letter itself is optional and requires neither seal nor signature.

An image of the purported Hague Convention Model Form showed it signed but without a seal. The absence of a seal had been cited by the Indian ministry. Yet the form itself states “Signature and/or stamp,” a phrase the SEC relied upon in its rebuttal.

On September 12, 2025, the SEC followed up on the requests for service originally sent in February and resent in May.

In November 2025, the Indian ministry responded again, citing SEC procedures and stating that the summonses were not covered under specific categories. The requests were once more returned.

That letter appears to have been the final straw. The SEC then moved a New York court. The uploaded documents show no fresh SEC response to the Indian ministry thereafter. However, the SEC’s court filing states that the ministry’s objection to its authority to invoke the Hague Convention lacked basis.

The SEC’s move triggered rapid developments. On January 23 — just two days after the SEC approached the court — Gautam Adani’s counsel wrote to the court stating that discussions were ongoing with the SEC and requested that the court’s order be deferred.

The court agreed to defer its ruling until January 30, 2026.

Subsequently, the SEC informed the court that counsel for the Adanis had agreed to service of process, eliminating the need for the court to rule on the motion. The defendants, however, retained all litigation rights, including those concerning jurisdiction.

What was resolved in just over a week had, in fact, taken 429 days of back-and-forth since the filing of the original case. Not all delays can be attributed to the Indian ministry. During this period, Donald Trump became the 47th President of the United States, leading to some administrative flux and related pauses. Nonetheless, the sheer number of days required for what is typically a procedural step is illustrative.

Numbers, however, do not tell stories on their own.

In June, a pregnant woman named Sunali Khatun was swept up in Delhi’s drive against alleged illegal immigrants. She was “pushed back” to Bangladesh in “hot haste” within five days — even though the Union home ministry states that verification can take up to 30 days. Following intervention by the Supreme Court, Sunali returned to India on humanitarian grounds.

One process involving a tycoon consumed 429 days.
Another, involving the deportation of a pregnant woman, took only five.

The question remains: when the documents attributed to the SEC entered the public domain, what did India’s paper tigers do?

You’re right. That version became too report-like and lost the sharpness and tone of the original slides. Let me rewrite it properly — as a strong, flowing narrative that keeps everything you said, but with better rhythm, coherence and punch.

Watch the Video Presentation here:

The Silence of the Newsrooms

Let us return to the afternoon of January 21, 2026, in New York. That was when the SEC documents relating to the service of summons on Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani quietly dropped onto the internet. In New Delhi, it was around 2 a.m. on January 22. Too late for most newspapers to carry the development in their January 22 print editions.

So let us grant them that grace. Let us wait for the morning of January 23 — more than 24 hours after the SEC-linked documents had entered the public domain.

Good morning, upcountry India.

The Indian Express arrives. Page 1 is scanned carefully. No SEC-Adani service request story in sight. Perhaps the large advertisement at the bottom elbowed it out. Fine. Let us turn to the business section.

The Economy page does carry an Adani story — tiny, tucked near the bottom. But it is not the SEC development. It is a Press Trust of India report about Adani Energy’s dipping profit. The SEC story remains elusive.

By January 24 — over 50 hours after the documents surfaced — the story finally makes its way to the front page of The Indian Express. Or perhaps it forces its way in, propelled not by editorial urgency but by market tremors. The headline reads: “Adani stocks fall as US SEC plans email summons to Gautam Adani.” Investor jitters appear to have mattered more than the reader’s right to know that the SEC had moved a New York court after 429 days of procedural resistance.

The Times of India — whose parent company’s media school trained me in 1990–91 — never ceases to surprise. The story is on Page 1. Yes, it is a brief. But it is there. The brief points to Page 27.

And so begins a small expedition through the paper. After negotiating the rapids of newsprint, Page 27 appears.

There it is — a larger SEC-Adani story sailing in the Times Business section. Three columns. Five paragraphs. Placed above the “anchor” story. Yet, despite its vast in-house reporting network, The Times has opted for a Reuters report. What kept its reporters so preoccupied that none could be spared for this development? The rest of the page offers no clue.

Next, The Hindu. Usually dependable. Surely this would find space on Page 1. It does not. The colourful NDA advertisement dominates attention. Turning to the business page, the SEC story does appear — a narrow report in the second deck. Once again, Reuters. Once again, a paper with a formidable reporting network relying on a wire copy.

The Telegraph — a paper I once edited — does not carry the story on Page 1 either. On the Business page, the Reuters report sits as a single-column item.

The New Indian Express? I cannot find the story on either the front page or the business page. I deliberately say “I could not find the story,” because newspapers today scatter tiny items across labyrinthine layouts. It is possible the SEC story is camouflaged somewhere. But must readers play Indiana Jones to locate consequential news? Or should newspapers present important developments in ways that are visible and accessible?

Now to my home turf.

I cannot find the SEC story in Malayala Manorama. Malayalam newspapers, these days, seem absorbed in the gold theft at the Sabarimala temple.

Mathrubhumi, too — the story eludes me. On January 23, I also fail to spot the SEC-Adani development on the front pages of the two Left newspapers, Deshabhimani and Janayugam.

Across both print editions and paywalled online editions, the SEC-Adani story does not appear — at least not in any visible form — in The Indian Express, The New Indian Express, Malayala Manorama and Mathrubhumi on January 23. The Telegraph, whose e-paper is free, and some others do carry it in one form or another.

As a subscriber to the four newspapers mentioned, I wrote to their editors on the night of January 23, using the email addresses published in their pages, asking why the story had not been reported that day. There has been no acknowledgement since. I cannot even be certain that my emails reached them.

Watch the Video Presentation here:

Who Swam Against the Tide — and What the Newsrooms Chose to Chase

Let us ask the obvious question: who swam against the tide?

We return once more to the afternoon of January 21 in New York — and 2 a.m. on January 22 in India — when the SEC-Adani story broke.

Not all journalists were asleep.

At 4:28 a.m. on January 22 — less than three hours after the SEC documents entered the public domain — a journalist in India had already filed a report.

Devirupa Mitra published a detailed and comprehensive story for the news portal The Wire at 4:28 a.m., proving that where there is the will, there is always a story. It is worth noting that The Wire does not charge its readers; it relies solely on donations.

Now, about the print editions.

The news that day, in my view, was not about the Adanis. The Adanis — who have denied the charges — were part of a legal process that would unfold in court. It is an ongoing matter. Only a court of law can determine innocence or guilt, and until then, the Adanis are entitled to every protection the law affords.

The Wire struck the nail squarely on the head. Its headline placed emphasis where it belonged — highlighting that the Modi government had blocked the SEC request for several months.

That, I believe, was the real story.

The central issue was how the Union government appeared to have responded to attempts to serve summons on defendants facing charges in a country that India publicly celebrates as a friend. The purported documents — uploaded and attributed to the SEC — suggest that the American watchdog contested the Indian law ministry’s objections, citing material under the Hague Convention. What remains unclear, however, is whether the Indian government subsequently challenged the SEC’s version.

Indian citizens have the right to know whether their government misled a regulatory watchdog; whether it stonewalled a legal process with implications for investors; or whether, conversely, the US watchdog’s claims are inaccurate — in which case the Indian government ought not to take that lying down.

Once again, the story was not about the Adanis. It was about the stand adopted by the Indian government.

Yet no newspaper I examined appeared to foreground that aspect. Rarely are Indian newspapers handed, on a platter, a stack of legal documents already in the public domain. Yet in this instance, most chose either to ignore the development for over 51 hours or to underplay it.

I had assumed that at least some newspapers would use the documents — after erecting the necessary journalistic guardrails.

I had assumed that some would frame the story along the lines indicated here: using documents whose authorship had not been contested until February 14, and pressing the issue of the purported position adopted by the Indian government.

But several newsrooms seem to have perfected the art of swallowing inconvenient news when it concerns powerful players. The inevitable result: readers are denied important information.

And then — bouncing back from these depths of professional despair — I discovered renewed hope.

On February 6, Mathrubhumi carried a Page 1 story that restored my faith in the data-gathering zeal of Indian print newsrooms. The newspaper reported, in meticulous detail, how National Security Adviser Ajit Doval went shopping — unannounced — and purchased banana chips. Yes. B-A-N-A-N-A C-H-I-P-S. Banana chips. In Thiruvananthapuram.

The operation, it seems, was blown open when some employees of a space agency recognised Doval and introduced themselves. Hold your breath: he reportedly exchanged pleasantries with them in Hindi and English.

Pulse racing and adrenaline pumping, I read the chips story with the thrill of watching a Mission: Impossible sequence. Mathrubhumi displayed remarkable courage in revealing what could only be described as state secrets — such as the presence of four vehicles and an ambulance stationed outside while Doval selected his banana chip supplies. The report even disclosed how much money he spent on the purchase.

Indian print newsrooms, clearly, are in safe hands — locked and loaded for the mission.

Step aside, without reservation, Ethan Hunt.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to retire.

Thank you.

Watch the video presentation here:

R Rajagopal, Senior Journalist, Former Editor The Telegraph

The post Newsrooms that Swallow Whales appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Throughout the year, CJP successfully challenged problematic impugned broadcasts of several leading news channels—including Zee News, India TV, Aaj Tak, ABP News, NDTV, and Times Now Navbharat—for airing content that relied on presumptive narratives, unverified claims, and polarising themes. These interventions led to landmark decisions where the regulator (NBDSA) ordered the removal of offensive content, issued formal warnings, and released advisories to broadcasters regarding the sensitive framing of religious and communal issues.

A notable shift in 2025 was CJP’s focus on the “war-like” rhetoric and inflammatory tickers used during coverage of sensitive geopolitical events, such as the reported India-Pakistan tensions, and domestic flashpoints. By documenting these violations in real-time, CJP not only secured apologies and content deletions but also pushed for a more robust accountability framework.

The following CJP’s 2025 NBDSA Interventions Tracker provides a detailed, channel-wise breakdown of the complaints filed by CJP and the subsequent decisions rendered by the NBDSA to uphold broadcasting standards.

CJP’s 2025 NBDSA Interventions Tracker

CJP’s 2025 NBDSA interventions: a year of ensuring accountability in media reporting

1.  Landmark decisions delivered in 2025

The year began with a series of significant decisions from the NBDSA on complaints CJP had filed regarding broadcasts that sought to communalise sensitive domestic and international issues.

• Zee News: the “Budaun Encounter” case

On January 27, 2025, the NBDSA delivered a pivotal order regarding a broadcast aired on March 20, 2024. The show, titled “Debate on Budaun encounter LIVE: Encounter पर क्यों उठा रहे सवाल?” focused on a tragic criminal incident involving two brothers.

• Fact of the complaint: CJP argued that the anchor, Pradeep Bhandari, repeatedly used the term “Talibani-style murder” and framed the entire debate around the religious identity of the accused. The show suggested a broader conspiracy rooted in religion rather than treating the incident as an individual criminal act.
• The NBDSA decision: The Authority ruled that the broadcast violated the Guidelines to Prevent Communal Colour in Reporting Crime. The NBDSA noted that linking a crime to a specific religion or using extremist terminology like “Talibani” without evidence was inflammatory.
• Action taken: A formal warning was issued to Zee News on January 27, 2025. The channel was ordered to remove the video from all platforms within 7 days and ensure the order was disseminated to all member broadcasters as a corrective measure.

• Times Now Navbharat: communalising the Israel-Hamas conflict

Also on January 27, 2025, the NBDSA ruled on two segments from October 16, 2023 on theme “Modi के खिलाफ… क्यों खडे ‘हमास’ के साथ?” and “Rashtravad: हिंदुस्तान में ‘Hamas Think tank’ कौन बना रहा है?”

• Fact of the complaint: CJP stated that how the anchors, Rakesh Pandey and Naina Yadav, portrayed Indian Muslims and opposition leaders supporting the Palestinian cause as “Hamas sympathisers.” The broadcast used leading questions to suggest that religious ties in India were fueling support for global terrorism.
• The NBDSA decision: The regulator found that the broadcaster had exceeded its limits by targeting a particular community. The NBDSA observed that the debates conflated political support for Palestine with support for a banned entity (Hamas), thereby creating prejudice.
• Action taken: The NBDSA issued a formal warning for violating neutrality and ordered the immediate removal of the content within 7 days.

Times Now Navbharat: addressing communal tones in cultural debates

• Facts of the complaint: On September 9, 2024, CJP filed a complaint against the show “Desh Ka Mood Meter: सनातन संस्कृति…कट्टरपंथियों के लिए सॉफ्ट टारगेट?” which aired on September 2, 2024. The program was flagged for its inflammatory framing of issues related to Sanatan culture and its portrayal of certain groups as “extremists” targeting religious sentiments. CJP argued that the broadcast lacked objectivity and used a sensitive cultural subject to build a polarising narrative.
• NBDSA Action: Regarding this intervention, the NBDSA delivered its decision on December 3, 2025, directing the broadcaster to remove the content from its website, YouTube channel, and all other digital links within 7 days.

Times Now Navbharat: caution against presumptive Madrasa narratives

• Moreover, CJP intervened on August 26, 2024, concerning two segments aired on August 19, 2024: “Sankalp Rashtra Nirman Ka: कराची का लिटरेचर..भारत के मदरसों में क्या कर रहा?” and “Rashtravad: भारत का मदरसा…पाकिस्तान का सिलेबस?”. The complaints cantered on the unverified nature of the claims that literature from Karachi was being taught in Indian Madrasas, which CJP argued contributed to the stigmatisation of religious educational institutions.

• NBDSA decision/action: In its decision dated June 9, 2025, the NBDSA decided to close the complaint but concluded with a strong advisory observation. The Authority emphasised that anchors must be significantly more cautious when framing programs involving religious or communal issues, particularly when claims are unverified. Furthermore, the NBDSA warned that broadcasters should strictly avoid presumptive narratives that have the potential to foster feelings of hatred or ill-will toward any community.

C.)  India TV: the Bahraich violence reporting

On September 25, 2025, a decision was reached regarding the show “Coffee Par Kurukshetra: यूपी में पत्थरबाजों की फौज कहां से आई? UP Bahraich Violence | CM Yogi” (aired October 15, 2024), which covered communal violence in Bahraich, UP.

• Fact of the complaint: CJP pointed out in its complaint that the channel used the inflammatory headline “Army of stone-pelters” and conducted a one-sided debate that demonised a specific community as “outsiders” and “aggressors” without providing space for a neutral or dissenting view.
• The NBDSA decision: The Authority found that the channel failed to maintain objectivity. It ruled that the broadcast was likely to incite communal hatred and was not a balanced representation of the facts on the ground.
• Action taken: The NBDSA ordered the removal of the broadcast from the channel’s website and YouTube within 7 days.

1.  CJP’s 2025 NBDSA interventions

• Network 18 (News18 MP Chhattisgarh)

Complaint Date: May 14, 2025

Theme of the show: “India’s air strike Pakistan: Operation Sindoor में मारा गया आतंकी Mohammad Iqbal | India Pak War,” dated May 7, 2025.

• Facts of the complaint: On May 14, 2025, CJP moved a formal complaint against News18 MP Chhattisgarh regarding its May 7, 2025, broadcast titled “India’s air strike Pakistan: Operation Sindoor में मारा गया आतंकी Mohammad Iqbal.” The complaint alleges that the channel grossly misreported the death of Maulana Qari Mohammad Iqbal, a respected religious scholar and teacher from Poonch, Jammu and Kashmir, by labeling him a “most-wanted terrorist” and “top Lashkar-e-Taiba commander” killed in a purported airstrike.

• However, official statements from the Poonch Police and independent fact-checkers confirmed that Iqbal was a civilian who died due to cross-border shelling and had no links to militancy. This broadcast constitutes a severe breach of the NBDSA’s Code of Ethics, specifically the principles of accuracy, impartiality, objectivity, and the right to privacy.

• CJP demanded an immediate on-air corrigendum, a formal unconditional apology to the deceased’s family, and the permanent removal of the defamatory content from all digital platforms to redress the significant moral and journalistic failure. 

• Action Taken: Response was received from the channel, video removed and apology rendered by the channel.

• ABP News

Complaint Date: 15.05.2025

Title/Theme of the show: “India Pakistan War Update: श्रीनगर और लुधियाना में ब्लैक आउट” Dated May 8, 2025

• Facts of complaint: On May 15, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a formal complaint against ABP News for broadcasting misleading visuals during its May 8, 2025, segment titled “India Pakistan War Update.” The channel allegedly aired four-year-old footage of Israel’s Iron Dome system from 2021, falsely presenting it as real-time evidence of Indian air defences intercepting a drone attack in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

• This misrepresentation, identified by independent fact-checkers like Alt News, constitutes a severe violation of the NBDSA’s Code of Ethics regarding accuracy, impartiality, and neutrality. By prioritising sensationalism over due diligence during a period of heightened national anxiety, the broadcast risked inciting public panic and glorifying military violence through fabricated success.

• Furthermore, the report disregarded specific Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) advisories against real-time reporting of defines operations and the spread of disinformation. CJP argues that such reckless journalism compromises national security and erodes public trust in mainstream media. Consequently, the organisation demands an immediate on-air corrigendum, a formal public apology from the channel, and the permanent removal of all contentious content from digital platforms to prevent further circulation of this disinformation.

• Aaj Tak

Complaint Date: May 14, 2025

Title/Theme of the show: “पाकिस्तान पर भारत पर भारत का चौतरफा हमला, Lahore-Karachi में भारी नुक़सान [India’s All-Around Attack on Pakistan, Heavy Losses in Lahore-Karachi]” dated May 9, 2025

• Facts: On May 14, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a formal complaint against Aaj Tak for broadcasting misrepresented and sensationalised content regarding “Operation Sindoor.” On May 9, senior anchors Anjana Om Kashyap and Shweta Singh presented footage claiming to show a Pakistani drone attack being repelled in Jaisalmer and an “all-around attack” on Lahore and Karachi. These segments utilised the sensational headline: “पाकिस्तान पर भारत का चौतरफा हमला, Lahore-Karachi में भारी नुक़सान.”

• Technical verification revealed a systemic failure in journalistic due diligence. Specifically, on May 7, the channel aired visuals of seven missiles allegedly being launched in Bahawalpur, Pakistan. Reverse image searches confirmed this footage was actually from a Sputnik Armenia report dated October 13, 2023, depicting Israeli airstrikes in Gaza. The Israeli Air Force’s official records further corroborated the origin of the clips.

• NDTV

Complaint Date: 15.05.2025

Theme/Title of the Show: “India-Pakistan Tension: पाकिस्तान के खिलाफ भारत का जवाबी हमला शुरू” dated May 8, 2025

• Facts of the complaint: On May 15, 2025, CJP filed a formal complaint against NDTV regarding its May 8 broadcast titled “India-Pakistan Tension: India Attacks Pakistan Breaking.” The complaint alleges that NDTV aired visuals falsely depicting a Pakistani air attack being foiled by Indian air defines systems in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. However, independent fact-checkers, including Alt News, established that the footage was actually a four-year-old video from 2021 showing Israel’s Iron Dome system.

• CJP asserted, in its complaint, that this constitutes a gross violation of the NBDSA’s Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards, specifically breaching principles of impartiality, objectivity, and neutrality. By presenting recycled foreign footage as real-time military action without due diligence, the channel disseminated dangerous disinformation during a sensitive national security crisis.

• Further it was argued that “this irresponsible brand of journalism” not only misled the public but also violated Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) advisories against real-time reporting of defines operations and the spread of misinformation. Consequently, CJP demands that NDTV issue a prominent on-air corrigendum, a formal public apology, and immediately remove all related digital content from its platforms. The organisation emphasised that such lapses can provoke mass panic and compromise national security, necessitating urgent corrective action to restore journalistic integrity.

• Times Now Navbharat

Complaint Date: May 15, 2025

Theme/Title of show: “#BharatPAKWarBREAKING: भारत-पाकिस्तान युद्ध पर अमेरिका का बयान- ‘हम भारत को नहीं रोक सकते’ [U.S. statement on the India-Pakistan war: ‘We cannot stop India]” dated May 9, 2025.

• Facts: On May 15, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a formal complaint against Times Now Navbharat regarding a May 9 broadcast titled “#BharatPAKWarBREAKING: भारत-पाकिस्तान युद्ध पर अमेरिका का बयान- ‘हम भारत को नहीं रोक सकते’.” The channel aired visuals allegedly showing a Pakistani air attack being foiled by Indian air defines systems in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan; however, fact-checking established that the video was actually four-year-old footage sourced from a 2021 YouTube upload by NSFchannel, likely depicting Israel’s Iron Dome.

• The complaint highlights that the footage was presented with a tone of real-time urgency and lacked any disclaimers or source identification, creating a false narrative of active military escalation. This broadcast constitutes a gross violation of the NBDSA Code of Ethics—specifically regarding accuracy, impartiality, and neutrality—and disregards the MIB advisory dated April 25, 2025, which prohibits real-time reporting of defines operations and the dissemination of disinformation.

• India TV

Complaint Date: May 16, 2025

Title/Theme: “Pakistan Drone Destroyed in Rajasthan: राजस्थान के रामगढ़ में गगराया गया पागकस्तानी ड्रोन [Pakistani drone shot down in Ramgarh, Rajasthan] IND Vs PAK” dated May 9, 2025.

• Facts: On May 9, 2025, India TV broadcasted a segment titled “Pakistan Drone Destroyed in Rajasthan: राजस्थान के रामगढ़ में गगराया गया पागकस्तानी ड्रोन [Pakistani drone shot down in Ramgarh, Rajasthan] IND Vs PAK.” The complaint filed before NBDSA on 16.05.2025 highlighted that the channel used a four-year-old video of Israel’s Iron Dome Air Defence System (originally published on May 11, 2021, by @NSFchannel) to represent a current drone intercept in Jaisalmer. The broadcast lacked any “file footage” disclaimer, creating a false narrative of real-time military success.
• Consequently, on May 29, 2025, the channel admitted the error, removed all digital content, and issued a public apology.

The 2025 Media Sentinel: CJP’s Crusade against ‘Digital Hate’

This, in 2025, continuing with its systematic monitoring and well-researched interventions, CJP emerged in the vanguard against the digital-ised hate era of Indian television. By moving beyond isolated protests and focusing on the systemic weaponisation of newsroom aesthetics, CJP urged the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) to deliver its most significant set of accountability orders to date.

The year 2025 has established that communal polarisation is no longer a “risk-free” revenue model for broadcasters. Through sustained legal interventions, CJP has turned the NBDSA from a silent regulator into an active arbiter of truth. Broadcasters are now on notice: every sensational ticker, unverified “war” clip, and biased panel will be documented, challenged, and eventually dismantled in the interest of constitutional harmony.

Related

CJP files complaint with six news channels for spreading misinformation, making false terror links: Operation Sindoor

Broadcasting Bias: CJP’s fight against hatred in Indian news

Human Rights Day 2024: CJP’s Fight for Access to Justice in India

The post CJP’s 2025 Hate Watch: leading the fight for accountability in the digital media appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The notice did not specify the grounds for the ban but The Wire’s founding editor, Siddharth Varadarajan, who attended the meeting, was informed orally before he was invited to speak that the grounds for blocking the cartoon were that it spread rumours/unverified information that would affect the defence, security, reputation of the country and India’s relations with foreign countries.

The Wire then presented its views to the IDC – which includes senior officials from the ministries of defence, home, information and broadcasting, external affairs, IT and law, as well from the MOD/army.

The Wire has also handed over a written submission to the IDC, which is appended below.

§

The Wire received a notice by email at 6:55 pm on February 10, 2026, purporting to be an “opportunity to appear and submit its comments/ clarifications” before the Inter-Departmental Committee with regard to a ‘request’ for blocking of certain social media URLs where a 52 second animated cartoon was posted by us.

We have been directly informed by one of the social media platforms that the blocking order they received explicitly cites Section 69A of the Information Technology Act.

No ground on which the blocking is permissible or sought or to be considered has accompanied the notice to us or to the social media platforms. Though couched as a hearing on a ‘request’ to block, the fact is that the blocking of the URLs mentioned in the Annexure to the notice has already occurred more than 22 hours prior to the notification to the Wire of this “opportunity”. In other words, this is an ex post facto notice.

At the hearing on February 11 2026 at 3 pm I was told orally that the grounds were – spreading rumours/unverified information that would affect defence, security, reputation of the country and India’s relations with foreign countries. Since this was brought up for the first time, I am placing my written submissions on record.

I was not informed which part was rumour, and how it affected any interest. Can a critical perception of the Prime Minister by a section of the people of his country be inimical to national interest? When has a cartoon video caricaturing a leader or the government ever been viewed in that light? Only a paranoid administration can even suggest this.

The content blocked is a 52-second cartoon clip, containing a humorous depiction of the Prime Minister, whose decision to absent himself from a Parliament debate on account of a purported physical threat from women Opposition MPs (including that they may use their teeth to bite him!) has been widely reported and commented upon.

The Prime Minister is a political personality answerable to the people. The manner in which he deals with questions raised by the Opposition or other issues is eminently a matter for the media and people at large to criticise, discuss – and even mock. To suggest that the Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy needs to be protected from a satirical 52-second video or that the nation needs to be protected from it is an insult to the Indian State.

The protection of an elected leader in a democracy from criticism or even mockery is not the function of law and indeed not contemplated by Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, under which the order to block access to our cartoon was purportedly made. The Supreme Court has repeatedly noted the importance of uninhibited public debate, even that expressed through “sarcastic and sometimes unpleasant sharp criticism of Government and public officials”. (D.C. Saxena v. Chief Justice of India, (1996) 5 SCC 216, para 30)

In any event, there is nothing in the video which can be said to affect even remotely the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order. Neither the executive nor the IDC can direct the blocking of content on grounds not recognised by Section 69-A. There is no legitimate power to block the URLs and the blockage you have ordered is an abuse of authority.

The only power available to the executive for blocking of content under the Intermediary Rules, 2021 comes from and is also limited by Section 69-A of the Information Technology Act (IT Act). Rule 16 of the IT Rules, 2021 merely operationalises the manner of exercise of the power and cannot go beyond the limits of the IT Act.

Section 69-A(1) reads:

“(1) Where the Central Government or any of its officers specially authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block for access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource.” (emphasis supplied)

It may be recalled that the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 had upheld the constitutionality of Section 69-A upon the twin conditions that a block should be effected by a reasoned order relatable strictly to the limited grounds enumerated in Section 69-A, and a pre-decisional hearing given to the originator, where the originator is identified or identifiable. None of this has been done.

Your attention is also drawn to the fact that the cartoon only refers to issues already in the public domain and is a simple light-hearted presentation of the issues and use of words that the news media in India has been full of. Absence from Parliament of leaders of government has always been a matter of both comment and concern. Moreover, scores of news items, videos,TV debates and discussions in the social media have used the very words in the video in recent times and as such there is nothing in the cartoon clip that is not already in the public eye.

Since you are now saying that our cartoon has been banned for spreading rumours and unverified information that adversely affects national security, I have appended a list of several reports, including one going back to December 2023, which use words drawn from General Naravane’s book, which I imagine is the source of maximum concern/embarrassment for the prime minister. Not once have these words been denied, either by the government or the general, and scores of reports which reproduce these words – or rumours/unverified information as your IDC may call it – are currently in circulation. But it is The Wire’s 52-second cartoon which has been banned!

In the past, India’s leaders have welcomed and enjoyed satire at their own expense, and the mark of a confident leader is exactly that. This manner of blocking is as unfair to the ruling dispensation as it is to the media houses and to the very essence of freedom of expression.

You may recall that in the past when I have appeared before the IDC for post-facto hearings – first on the forced deletion of an extract from Caravan magazine and then on the blocking of The Wire’s website and the deletion of a story on CNN’s reporting about a downed Indian Rafale jet – neither the proceedings of the same nor the conclusions (reasoned or unreasoned) arrived at after the hearing, have ever been communicated to me, which again is a gross violation of the powers entrusted to the executive government by the IT Act and Rules.

While on the subject, I wish to bring to your notice that The Wire’s entire Instagram account was blocked for a period of time, and when I sought an explanation from the Joint Secretary, MIB, on February 9, I was told “We have not blocked your account.” Since the order to block content came from the MIB, triggering the blocking of the account itself for a while, a public official should surely have given a more transparent answer.

Since the point is a fairly obvious one, which is that the content blocked has no nexus with any of the stated objectives of Section 69-A IT Act, the blocking order must be rescinded with immediate effect. Also, it is only fair that the decision upon these proceedings should be communicated to The Wire, without delay, along with a copy of the order already issued under Section 69-A of the IT Act forming the basis for the blocking of the URLs mentioned in your notice.

LK Advani kept a diary during the Emergency which he published later under the title, A Prisoner’s Scrapbook. There is an entry from August 31, 1975, lamenting the closing down of Shankar’s Weekly, India’s premier satirical publication, that I wish to share with you.

The last issue, dated August 31, carries an editorial captioned ‘Farewell’, in which writes Advani: “Even the word emergency does not find a place in the editorial. But there can scarcely be a more devastating indictment of the emergency than this piece. Shankar writes, inter alia… ‘Dictatorships cannot afford laughter because people may laugh at the dictator, and that wouldn’t do’.”

In the end, I wish to say this. Democracies do not fall in a single dramatic moment. They erode slowly and quietly when those entrusted with power fear laughter and start taking action against it. Before you sign your names on to whatever decision you take, I ask only that you consider whether the Constitution you took an oath to serve was designed to protect authority from satire — or to protect citizens from the abuse of authority.

Thank you.

Annexure

Recent news items on the controversy in parliament

1. Lallantop
2. ⁠Jansatta 
3. ⁠National Herald 
4. ⁠Hindustan Times 
5. ⁠Deccan Herald 
6. ⁠The Federal
7. ⁠NDTV
8. ⁠Outlook 
9. ⁠The Leaflet 
10. The Organiser 
11. India Today (December 2023 report quoting the same words which were referred to in Parliament)

Courtesy: The Wire

The post ‘Democracies Erode When Those Entrusted With Power Fear Laughter and Start Taking Action Against It’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Page 6 of the Delhi edition of the Express, a blink-and-miss single column had the headline: “MEA dismisses Epstein email with PM reference as ‘trashy rumination’”.

The report below said: “The Ministry of External Affairs on Saturday rejected any suggestion of impropriety after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s name surfaced in a reference contained in newly-released US Justice Department files linked to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.”

Although I described the Express as an “early bird” in uploading its E-paper, I was a Late Latif as I was on a train the previous day and I could not access any news because of the patchy data link. When I woke up on Sunday, I had only a vague idea that Prime Minister Modi had been allegedly named.

I was expecting The Indian Express to share with me — a paid subscriber like many others — information on the issue. But try as I might, I could not spot anywhere in the Express report what the email said about Modi. The Express used coded phrases such as “reference” and “claims” without explaining what they were.

A little later, The Times of India dropped. The story was tucked away in one of the Siberian pages but with no enlightenment on what exactly the email allegedly said.

Then it was Mathrubhumi’s turn, which, mercifully, mentioned the details but added at the end that the BJP had alleged that the mail had been “edited”. That landed me in a quandary: if the email is edited as the BJP has claimed, how can I rely on the details the paper mentioned?

An option then was to check what the government is saying. I went to the External Affairs ministry site and saw its statement: “We have seen reports of an email message from the so-called Epstein files that has a reference to the Prime Minister and his visit to Israel. Beyond the fact of the Prime Minister’s official visit to Israel in July 2017, the rest of the allusions in the email are little more than trashy ruminations by a convicted criminal, which deserve to be dismissed with the utmost contempt.” (For the kind attention of the Express reporter and desk: the MEA says “trashy ruminations” but your headline and copy say “rumination” unless the ministry said so first and made it plural later.)

The ministry’s statement was colourful but did not offer any insight into what the email said. Back to square one.

Surfing the E-papers of The Indian Express and The Times of India (both are behind paywalls), I learnt about the alleged sex life and medical history of Bill Gates and the dexterity of Prince Andrew on all fours on the floor but I still could not figure out what the email said about my Prime Minister. NDTV did not hold back in its headline: “Ex-Prince Andrew Seen On All Fours Over Woman In Fresh Epstein File Images”.

Then The Hindu came through, and it had the quote that matched what Mathrubhumi said. A while later, The Telegraph also reported the quote that matched what The Hindu reported.

For the record, on July 6, 2017, Epstein allegedly sent an email to a contact in Qatar describing Modi’s recent visit to Israel. Reproduced verbatim from the website of the US Department of Justice, Epstein’s alleged email reads: “The Indian Prime minisiter modi took advice. and danced and sang in israel for the benefit of the US president. they had met a few weeks ago.. IT WORKED.!”

Is this how Indian citizens are expected to find out information about their Prime Minister?

Below is a quick wrap-up of how some newspapers covered the issue and my thoughts as a former editor. (I have kept out party mouthpieces.) The phrase “Journalism of cower-age” is not my coinage. The credit goes to a clever social media user.

THE INDIAN EXPRESS

Edition: Delhi

PM-Epstein report: Page 6

Size: Single column

Position: Middle of the page

Relative prominence: Smallest single column on the page

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? No. The report mentions “a reference” and “certain claims” but does not share with the reader what the “reference” or “certain claims” are.

Was the same policy followed while reporting other Epstein file entries? No. The same day’s World page (Page 12) has a big splash on the latest Epstein “document dump”, full with pictures and other details. The alleged sex life of Bill Gates is given pride of place in the roster. The after-party that Mira Nair (the headline helpfully gives the detail that she is the “mother of NYC mayor Mamdani” as if he decides which party his mother attends) allegedly went to has a separate story on the page.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 9/10

THE TIMES OF INDIA

Edition: Delhi

Page number: 18

Size: Single column

Position: Top of page

Relative prominence: Top but small single column

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? No. The report mentions “a reference” to Modi and his visit to Israel, under the headline, “Govt trashes ‘Epstein files’ email on Modi”. How The Times of India missed a chance to say “Govt trashes ‘trashy’ Epstein ’email’ is a mystery.”

Was the same policy followed while reporting other Epstein file entries? Ha, ha, ha. Not at all. The Times of India has a Page 1 bylined article, datelined Washington, on the Epstein files but the report focuses on Gates and others (under the headline, “New Epstein files claim Bill Gates caught STD from ‘Russian girls’,” and studiously avoids Modi. The same article continues (again bylined) as the lead story in the Global page (Page number 26) under the headline “Epstein emails have 100s of references to Trump, likely to shake up US politics”. Evidently, the Indian newspaper is more worried about US domestic politics. The paper has a chart on Gates, Richard Branson, Elon Musk, Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Steve Tisch but not on the purported content of the email referring to “modi”. The paper lists the granular references against “political and business elites” in spite of mentioning in the very first paragraph of the Page 1 report that some of the references are “lurid and unsubstantiated”.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 9.5/10

THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS

Edition: Thiruvananthapuram

PM-Epstein report: 0 (Could not readily find the report but I did not check the sports page)

Was the same policy followed while reporting other Epstein file entries? No. The same day’s World page (Page 9) has the following as the main headline: “Epstein’s partner presented girl to Trump, newly-released files reveal”. Gates gets top billing here too.

TELLING CLUE: The newspaper has a very important piece of news on Page 8: “Newspaper reading made mandatory for students in 800 skill centres in UP”. The eagerness to protect students from the “trashy rumination by a convicted criminal” (the Indian foreign ministry’s description of the alleged Epstein entry on the PM) must have made the newspaper drop the report. If so, a question pops up: shouldn’t the students be protected from such details as “Epstein’s partner presented girl to Trump”?

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 10/10

THE TELEGRAPH

Edition: Calcutta

PM-Epstein report: Page 2

Size: Three columns

Position: Second deck

Relative prominence: Prominent but for some reason, the alleged sex life of Bill Gates is given top-of-the-page play than the purported reference to the PM, Trump and Israel.

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? Yes. The report quotes verbatim from the purported Epstein file, under the headline “Centre rubbishes Modi mention in mail”.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 5/10

THE HINDU

Edition: Delhi

PM-Epstein report: Page 9

Size: Long double column

Position: Below the fold

Relative prominence: Prominent but shoved down the page

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? Yes. The Hindu has carried the longest and fairly comprehensive report on the issue, compared with the other newspapers I saw.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 4.5/10

MALAYALA MANORAMA

Edition: Thiruvananthapuram

PM-Epstein report: Page 9

Size: Three columns

Position: Top of the page

Relative prominence: Prominent but light font headline, blue background and colourful standalone picture below overshadow the report. But the newspaper is the only one I saw that says in the headline the news first and then the reaction: “Epstein file has a Modi reference; Centre dismissive”.

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? Yes. It is mentioned clearly

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 6/10

MATHRUBHUMI

Edition: Thiruvananthapuram

PM-Epstein report: Page 9

Size: Five columns

Position: Below the fold

Relative prominence: Somewhat prominent because of the double-deck headline in red.

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? Yes, it is mentioned clearly. But the headline is a bit confusing. The headline says “Epstein files: Centre denies allegation that Modi’s name is mentioned”. As far as I can understand from the statement of the external affairs ministry, it has not explicitly denied that Modi is mentioned in the email (neither has it confirmed but chooses the double-edged phrase “so-called Epstein files”. What the ministry has denied is the veracity of parts of the claims in the email, as far as I can understand.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 6.5/10

WHAT AN EDITOR SHOULD DO (According to me)

To be sure, Epstein is a jerk whose claims should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. But a newspaper cannot dismiss any information without trying to verify it.

A newspaper’s principal role is to inform its readers. An editor has the final say on which news to carry and where to carry it but they have no business spiking any information concerning the Prime Minister or any elected representative or public figure if it involves public interest.

If an editor is not sure of the authenticity and is unable to verify it, they should see if the information is free of filthy language and indecent comments. If so, the editor should share it with the reader with an admission that the authenticity could not be verified. Even if the information has bad language, it should either be paraphrased or the nature of the information made clear and then published if it involves public interest. India’s foreign policy definitely involves public interest. Also, if the information turns out to be false later, it can be displayed prominently. Public figures always get a second chance. In any case, the newspaper is not levelling the allegation but merely reporting what has been released in another country under intense public pressure, survivor advocacy and binding legislation.

As a measure of extreme caution, the editor can get the information vetted to see if some of the specifics could be verified. From Epstein’s mail, the first question that pops up is: did Modi visit Israel around the time the purported email was said to have been sent? In short, did Modi visit Israel around July 6, 2017? Yes, Modi did visit Israel from July 4 to 6, 2017. This is what the Ministry of External Affairs had said on July 05, 2017: “Marking the 25th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India visited Israel from 4-6 July 2017 at the invitation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. This historic first-ever visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Israel solidified the enduring friendship between their peoples and raised the bilateral relationship to that of a strategic partnership.”

Second question: After referring to Modi and the US President, the purported email says “they had met a few weeks ago”. Did Modi and Trump meet a few weeks before? Yes. On June 21, 2017, Brookings, the US-based think tank, had announced: “Three years into his term, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will visit two countries with which India has close partnerships. He will return to Washington on June 25-26, this time for his inaugural meeting with President Trump. Following that, he will travel to Israel on July 5-6 for the first-ever visit by an Indian premier. For Israel, the growing relationship with India is part of a wide-ranging effort to deepen its relationship with major Asian powers including India, China, and Japan. On June 21, The India Project and the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings hosted an event, with one panel each focused on India’s relationship with the United States and Israel.” In focus during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the U.S. was his establishment of a personal equation with U.S. President Donald Trump, the Hindu Net desk reported on June 27, 2017.

Third and million-dollar question: Did Modi dance and sing in Israel? We don’t know. We don’t even know if the email writer used the phrase figuratively or literally. What we know is that Modi and Netanyahu hit it off very well. This is what NDTV reported — rich in details of statecraft — on July 6, 2017: “Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu today took a stroll on the beach, their natural warmth and chemistry on full display. The two prime ministers hitched up their trousers and waded barefoot into the surf together at Olga beach in northern Israel. They had gone to the beach to see a demonstration of a mobile water desalination unit. Later, they drove together in the mobile water desalination unit — which looked like a dune buggy – and were seen sipping samples of water from wine glasses, even raising a toast.” Most readers are certain to remember the beach pictures so vividly described in the NDTV report. (This was five years before the Adanis gained control of NDTV.)

With the information available so far and the subsequent as well as persistent claims by Trump and the silence by Modi, an editor has only one option: the information must be published but without being judgemental and without casting aspersions on the Prime Minister or how his foreign policy is conducted. The responsibility of the media to inform the public assumes paramount importance here. Besides, withholding information can sometimes harm the person or organisation a newspaper could be seeking to protect. In the absence of clarity, readers may speculate and imagine the worst possible scenarios that are far more damaging than what may have actually taken place. Maximum transparency possible, provided the information does not affect public order or harm national security and is within the limits of decency, is always the best policy.

Then the editor faces a big question: Should the purported claims of a beast like Epstein be published? The answer does not lie in the character of Epstein but in the question why Epstein mentioned Modi. Then other purported mails come into play, including those involving Anil Ambani. Then comes the very BIG question: Were the Indians dealing with Epstein even after his atrocities were known? The Wire reports: “The most significant communications occurred in May 2019 – barely six weeks before Epstein’s arrest on federal charges of trafficking underage girls – as India’s general election results were being counted.” Considering these details, my answer is: Yes, the purported contents of the email must be published.

The next question is how to play it. Almost every newspaper, except a party mouthpiece, I saw wrote the story as a denial. None of the reports began with the news: that the Prime Minister’s name figured in the purported mail and what the mail said. Most news reports chose to begin with the denial, regardless of the fact that they had not reported the email content earlier. Some editors try to justify this by saying TV has already shown the news and the print wants to take it forward. Then why do reports on the speeches of Modi and Amit Shah attacking the Opposition (which are shown ad nauseam on TV) begin with the same attack in the newspapers the next day and not with the Opposition’s reaction? The uniform manner in which most newspapers have begun the story with the external affairs ministry’s denial raises the question whether it was choreographed or whether the default response from the media now is to highlight the official response.

Of course, Epstein was among the worst scum on earth, whose utterances have no ring of credibility — a factor that must have influenced the decision of the editors who decided to bury the news. But what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander too. Why, then, did some of these newspapers publish Epstein’s claims against Gates and others in detail and prominently in spite of them issuing denials? Why didn’t these newspapers begin the story with Gates’s denial, instead of Epstein’s lurid claims?

Of course, editors can and should decide what they should highlight in a story. The Wire led with the Ambani angle, which is of far greater significance and which ties into the Modi reference. In a brilliant report by Devirupa Mitra and with the headline “Epstein Messages Reveal Anil Ambani Using Sex Offender’s Access to Pitch Modi’s Agenda With Trump”, The Wire nails it. The Wire also reported that “Newly released email exchanges between Bharatiya Janata Party leader Hardeep Puri and Jeffrey Epstein – though confined to business networking and investment discussions – cast doubt on the BJP’s earlier claim that Puri’s appearance in a message from Epstein amounted to little more than casual “name-dropping”. I could not readily see this information in the legacy newspapers I buy. AND THE WIRE IS FREE, UNLIKE THE LUMBERING LEGACY GIANTS WHO CHARGE MONEY BUT WITHHOLDS INFORMATION OR UNDERPLAYS IT. The point is: highlight what you want but do not begin with a denial and do report the full information as long as it is printable.

On the question of placement in newspapers, was this not a blind Page 1 report? How am I affected if “Bill Gates caught STD” or not? Should I not be bothered more about India’s foreign policy than Gates’s alleged medical affliction? Let alone Page 1, the Modi reference report has not made the main slot even in inside pages in the English legacy newspapers I buy. Hindustan Times has a Page 1 mention in a small box at the bottom of the page but that too focuses on the government denial.

The British press can be accused of many things. But when it comes to accountability, the British papers sometimes do what needs to be done. I leave you with the front pages of three “quality”, not tabloid, British newspapers although the revelations involving the former prince are not comparable with the entries linked to Indians so far.

Author’s Note: Epstein’s alleged email has spelling mistakes and, like many rich people, he did not believe in capital letters. I have reproduced the quote exactly as it appears on the US DoJ site.

About Author

Senior Journalist, Former Editor The Telegraph

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post When Some Titans Of Indian Media Crawled On All Fours, Like Ex-Prince Andrew, To Cover Up Or Bury The Indian Links in Epstein Files appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to CJP’s complaint, the show in question surrounded the tragic incidents of violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, which the program used as a pretext to incite communal tension within India. It is important to mention that while the professional identities of the Muslim panellists—including Islamic scholars and researchers—were acknowledged in the introductions, the channel systematically reduced them to a religious monolith by utilising the sensationalist and confrontational title “Kalicharan Maharaj Vs 4 Maulana.”

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots propagating these venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice. To learn more about our campaign against hate speech, please become a member. To support our initiatives, please donate now!

The show may be viewed here:

The complaint argues that the format, framing, selection of panellists, choice of questions, and on-screen graphics collectively abandoned journalistic neutrality and elevated unverified conspiracy-laden assertions into national discourse without editorial scrutiny. CJP has asserted that the show not only misrepresented facts regarding violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, but also used such incidents as a pretext to frame Indian Muslims as a civilisational threat.

From cross-border violence to domestic polarisation

According to the complaint, the broadcast opened by linking violence against Hindus in Bangladesh with the purported rise of “Islamist aggression” globally. However, instead of exploring geopolitical circumstances or international minority protections, the show allegedly shifted its focus toward a domestic communal binary. The choice to present the debate as “Kalicharan Maharaj vs 4 Maulana” formed the foundation of this shift, CJP states.

Despite introducing the Muslim speakers as an Islamic scholar, political analyst, researcher, and commentator, the anchor and graphics repeatedly referred to them simply as “Maulana,” thus transforming a discussion that could have been political or geopolitical into a religious contest. CJP describes this as “misclassification for ideological staging,” intended to create a perception of siege, in which a solitary Hindu ascetic was portrayed as battling an institutionalised Muslim clerical bloc.

Six-question format framed as leading accusations

Throughout the program, the anchor posed six structured questions with the duration of the program revolving not strictly around them. The title and the overarching theme of the show were entirely misleading, communal, and provocative in nature;

• Why are Maulanas selective regarding the lynching of Hindus in Bangladesh

• Is there a conspiracy to defame India by labelling it ‘Lynchistan’?

• What is the need for a ‘new Babri’ in India?

• Why the deception of Hindu daughters by hiding one’s identity?

• What is the cure for the extremist mindset of ‘Spit Jihad’?

• Is this an attempt to incite Muslims using threats of Jihad?

The debate concluded with a final question from the host that was intentionally biased and communally charged:

• Will the country be governed by the Constitution or by Sharia?

Rather than clarifying the issue, CJP contends that these questions acted as “leading indictments” that presumed collective Muslim culpability. Queries such as “Why are Maulanas selective regarding lynching of Hindus in Bangladesh?” presupposed silence or complicity, while the final question — “Will the country be governed by the Constitution or Sharia?” — framed Indian national identity in existential religious terms.

The complaint argues that such formulations not only lacked neutrality but also “prime viewers toward moral panic,” presenting Muslims as inherently disloyal or hostile to constitutional order.

Unchecked hate speech and historical tropes

CJP identified the segment between timestamps 03:47 and 05:50 as particularly problematic. According to the complaint, Kalicharan Maharaj used this interval to allege that Quranic verses command violence against non-Muslims, that a “Ghazwa-e-Hind” war was imminent, and that Indian Muslims were celebrating terrorism, foreign defeats, and the “endangerment of Hindus.”

The complaint stated that the host refrained from interrupting or contextualising these claims, nor did he correct doctrinal misinterpretations or historical inaccuracies. This lack of intervention, CJP argues, amounted to “editorial acquiescence” and violated NBDSA’s guidelines on anchor conduct, which require moderators to prevent communal provocation and ensure fair debate.

Ticker graphics as messaging devices

Beyond the spoken exchanges, CJP drew the NBDSA’s attention to ticker text such as “थूक जिहाद वाली कट्टर सोच का इलाज क्या?”, which the complaint argues acted as subliminal messaging designed to reinforce conspiracy theories regarding Indian Muslims.

According to CJP, such graphics, appearing independently of verbal debates, functioned as “parallel instruments of communal persuasion,” circumventing potential rebuttal from panellists.

Rebuttals marginalised, counter-narratives interrupted

The four Muslim panellists reportedly condemned violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, referenced Quranic principles of humanity, and questioned the logic of demographic threat narratives. However, the complaint contended that these rebuttals received limited airtime, often collapsed mid-sentence, or were reframed by the anchor to suit the original premise.

This, CJP argues, transformed the broadcast from a debate into a performance of polarisation, where countervailing facts were permitted only insofar as they sustained spectacle.

Constitutional vs. civilisational framing

The complaint pays particular attention to Zee News’ repeated invocation of a “civilisational clash” premise, perpetuated through references to “New Babri,” “Land Jihad,” and demographic fear-mongering. This framing intentionally juxtaposed constitutional citizenship against religious identity, portraying Indian Muslims as aligned with transnational Islamist forces rather than as domestic citizens.

According to the complaint, this framing not only essentialised Indian Muslims into a singular political category but also presumed collective disloyalty, a hallmark feature in scholarly definitions of hate speech.

Journalistic responsibilities and democratic stakes

The complaint stresses that broadcasters hold heightened responsibility during prime-time debates, which significantly influence public discourse and Zee News neglected established standards requiring accuracy, fairness, and avoidance of communal colour, thereby violating both NBDSA guidelines and the basic tenets of responsible media conduct.

The broadcast “an act of manufactured communal crisis,” warning that such content corrodes democratic deliberation by replacing informed public reasoning with fear-driven binaries, the complaint reads

Relief sought

In its prayer for relief, CJP has requested corrective action, including takedown of the broadcast, broadcast of a public apology, and institutional compliance directives aimed at preventing recurrence of such programming. The petition argues that accountability is essential not merely for redress but for restoring ethical norms within India’s broadcast ecosystem.

The copy of complaint dated January 20, 2026 may be accessed from here

A complaint had earlier addressed to Zee News on January 7, 2026, seeking a response and corrective action. As the broadcaster did not engage, CJP subsequently escalated the case to the NBDSA on January 20, 2026.

Related

Hate Watch 2025 | Tracking Hate, Defending Democracy | CJP

NBDSA ने ‘मिया बिहू’ पर सांप्रदायिक, एजेंडा–आधारित ब्रॉडकास्ट के लिए टाइम्स नाउ नवभारत को फटकारा; भड़काऊ कंटेंट हटाने का आदेश दिया

NBDSA orders Times Now Navbharat to take down ‘agenda-driven’ report on Assamese singer’s arrest

The post CJP files NBDSA complaint over Zee News’s ‘Kalicharan Maharaj vs 4 Maulanas’, alleging communal framing and hate tropes appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Masood had recently reported on a controversial police drive to collect information on mosques and mosque officials in Kashmir. He was asked to sign a bond, stating that he would not do anything to disturb peace in the union territory, the person said. Interestingly, the police action is not based on a formal first information report, but is being carried out under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the person said.

The provision allows an executive magistrate to pre-emptively seek bonds from people “likely to commit a breach of peace”. Government officials can invoke this section merely on the basis of information they have received about individuals.

Senior journalist Nirupama Subramaniam, on January 19, Monday commented sharply on the developments on social media

Reporters of Delhi national newspapers are being summoned by J&K police, harassed about routine “he said”, “she said” reports and asked to sign bonds they won’t do such reports again. First, the correspondent of one newspaper was summoned repeatedly over three days, and perhaps…

— Nirupama Subramanian (@tallstories) January 19, 2026

For Kashmir’s journalists, the cycle is vicious: repeated summonses, institutional pressure and the lack of a community safety net have become a part of an entrenched system that limits critical reporting, encourages self-censorship and sidelines independent media voices in the…

— Siddharth (@svaradarajan) January 20, 2026

Reportedly, an Indian Express spokesperson confirmed to the media that Masood had been called to the police station. “Bashaarat Masood, Assistant Editor, and a member of the Srinagar bureau of The Indian Express since 2006, was called on four days to the Cyber Police Station, Srinagar, and asked to sign a bond which he has not signed,” the spokesperson said. “The Indian Express is committed to doing what is necessary to uphold and protect the rights and dignity of its journalists.”

Scroll also contacted the senior superintendent of Srinagar police, asking about the reasons for summoning journalists and asking them to sign the bonds. The official did not respond to our calls and messages. This story will be updated if he responds.

The police summons

It was on the evening of January 14, Masood first received a phone call from the cyber police in Srinagar, asking him to come to the police station the next afternoon, according to the person familiar with the events that followed. As he got there, he was made to wait for nearly three hours after which a police officer asked him to come back the following day. The officer assured Masood that he would only have to spend half an hour at the police station the next time he came. However, the senior journalist ended up spending the whole of Friday and Saturday running from one government office to another.

Masood was reportedly first sent to the deputy commissioner’s office from the police station, where he was asked to sign a Section 126 bond. The police officials were unwilling to provide reasons for their demand, said the person. When Masood refused to comply, a police official told him that he would then have to go to Srinagar central jail.

From the deputy commissioner’s office, the journalist was sent back to the police station. There, one of the officers told him that he was being asked to sign the bond because of a story he had written on the political reaction to the police drive in mosques in Kashmir.

On Monday afternoon, he was called in again, the fourth day he had been forced to turn up at the police station. This time, though, the police did not keep him at the station for very long. The three other journalists got similar summons. One of them was out of Srinagar when he got a call from a police official, asking him to come in. None of the other journalists have, as of yet, reported to the police station.

‘Serious attack on press freedom,’

The four journalists summoned had reported on the political reaction to the Jammu and Kashmir police’s drive to collect information on mosques, which has been the subject of much controversy over the past week in Kashmir.

Police officials are reportedly distributing copies of a four-page form to mosques in the Muslim-majority region. The form seeks extensive information pertaining to the family background and financial details of those involved in the upkeep of the places of worship.

The exercise has drawn fire from Kashmiri politicians cutting across party lines as well as prominent religious organisations, who argue that this goes beyond looking into the legal status of mosques.

Indian Express also reported that J&K Director General of Police Nalin Prabhat was not available for comment. Another officer, who did not wish to be named, told the newspaper that the police called him following his news report about the police distributing a four-page document to all mosques in the Kashmir valley and seeking detailed information about their budget, funding sources, and management committees.

Masood has been a member of the Srinagar Bureau of The Indian Express since 2006. “His work over the last two decades speaks for itself. He has not signed the bond as asked by the police. The Indian Express is committed to doing what is necessary to uphold and protect the rights and dignity of its journalists,” said Raj Kamal Jha, Chief Editor, The Indian Express as quoted in the newspaper.

Related:

Interim bail to Gujarat journalist Mahesh Langa: SC

“This system breaks the body when it cannot break the spirit” — Ipsa Shatakshi on her jailed husband, journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh

The post J & K: Attempt to muzzle FoE, Media? Police summons to media, journalists appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The report identifies the reported disappearance and killing of journalist Mukesh Chandrakar in Bastar in early January as emblematic of the dangers faced by those who speak truth to power. Chandrakar had reported on poor-quality road construction in the region shortly before he went missing; his body was later found in a septic tank. The FSC notes that this incident set the tone for a year in which nine people were killed for exercising their right to free speech, including eight journalists and one social media influencer. It underscores that violence against journalists—particularly those working in rural and semi-urban districts—remains one of the most visible and brutal forms of silencing.

Journalists as primary targets

The FSC report records 40 attacks on free speech actors in 2025, of which 33 targeted journalists. It notes that reporters covering local corruption, illegal mining, liquor mafias, and administrative failures were especially vulnerable. In several cases, the police initially attempted to attribute killings or deaths to personal disputes, accidents, or intoxication, even when the journalists had recently published sensitive stories. The report highlights the case of Uttarakhand-based YouTuber Rajeev Pratap, whose body was recovered from the Bhagirathi, river days after he aired a video exposing liquor consumption inside a local hospital. Despite colleagues raising serious doubts, police claimed he had driven into the river while drunk.

The FSC further draws attention to the continued incarceration of journalists Irfan Mehraj and Rupesh Kumar under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, noting that their prolonged detention without trial exemplifies the use of counter-terror laws to suppress journalism. Threats and harassment accompanied physical violence: at least 14 of 19 harassment incidents and 12 of 17 recorded threats were directed at journalists engaged in professional work. The report cites, as illustrative, a threat by TDP MLA Gummanur Jayaram to force journalists “to sleep on railway tracks” if they published allegedly false information about him.

The return of sedition and criminal lawfare

One of the most troubling findings of the report is the resurgence of sedition prosecutions, despite repeated assurances that colonial-era speech offences had been rendered obsolete under the new criminal codes. The FSC documents multiple sedition cases filed in 2025 against satirists, journalists, and political commentators for online posts questioning state action.

The report details how satirists Neha Singh Rathore, Madri Kakoti (Dr Medusa), and Shamita Yadav (Ranting Gola) were charged with sedition for social media commentary following the Pahalgam attack. It flags the Allahabad High Court’s rejection of Rathore’s anticipatory bail as a significant departure from earlier judicial reluctance to allow sedition prosecutions for speech. The FSC also records the filing of sedition FIRs by Assam police against the leadership and columnists of The Wire, including founding editor Siddharth Varadarajan and consulting editor Karan Thapar, as well as against journalist Abhisar Sarma for a YouTube programme that relied on publicly available judicial observations.

According to the report, these cases exemplify “lawfare”—the strategic use of criminal law not necessarily to secure convictions, but to intimidate, exhaust, and silence critical voices through prolonged legal processes.

Mass censorship and platform control

The largest category of violations documented by the FSC in 2025 relates to censorship and internet control, with 11,385 instances recorded. The report highlights mass government takedown requests to social media platforms, particularly X (formerly Twitter). In May and July 2025 alone, over 10,000 accounts were withheld in India. Citing X’s submissions before the Karnataka High Court, the report notes that the platform received 29,118 takedown requests from the Indian government between January and June 2025 and complied with the overwhelming majority of them.

The FSC identifies the Sahyog portal as a key institutional mechanism enabling decentralised censorship by allowing state agencies, district officials, and local police to issue takedown notices directly to platforms. Following the Pahalgam attack, numerous accounts belonging to journalists, news organisations, and international media outlets—including The Wire, Maktoob Media, Reuters, and many senior journalists—were withheld without public disclosure of reasons. The report notes that the Karnataka High Court’s decision upholding the Sahyog portal effectively legitimised large-scale, opaque censorship of online speech.

The ‘Hidden Hand’: Self-censorship and corporate influence

Beyond formal orders, the FSC report devotes significant attention to what it terms the “hidden hand” of censorship: informal pressures, verbal directives, and institutional intimidation that rarely leave a documentary trail. The report cites instances of journalists receiving “friendly calls,” media houses quietly dropping stories, and investigative platforms being financially crippled through regulatory action, such as the revocation of The Reporter’s Collective’s tax-exempt status.

Corporate power, the report notes, increasingly intersected with state censorship. It documents the September 2025 ex-parte injunction obtained by Adani Enterprises leading to the takedown of over 200 pieces of online content critical of the company, as well as sustained attempts to suppress reporting on the Vantara wildlife project linked to Reliance Industries. Even where courts later set aside gag orders, the report observes that the chilling effect on media coverage persisted.

Academia, cinema, and the right to think

The FSC records at least 16 serious instances of censorship in academia, including the cancellation of conferences, denial of permissions, deportation of visiting scholars, and the revocation of OCI status of academics critical of the government. In Kashmir, the report notes, authorities banned 25 books on the region’s history and politics and raided bookstores.

In cinema, the report documents excessive cuts, prolonged certification delays, and outright denial of certification to films addressing caste violence, state abuse, or social injustice. It notes that even internationally acclaimed films and centenary classics were barred from screening, underscoring how certification had become a tool of prior restraint rather than classification.

An uneven judicial response

While acknowledging some notable judicial interventions in favour of free speech, the FSC concludes that the judiciary’s overall response in 2025 was inconsistent. The report contrasts strong Supreme Court observations protecting poetry, satire, and art with orders that imposed gag conditions, endorsed expansive censorship mechanisms, or demanded apologies from artists. This inconsistency, the report argues, has failed to provide a stable constitutional shield for free expression.

A shrinking democratic space

In its concluding assessment, the Free Speech Collective warns that the cumulative impact of violence, lawfare, mass censorship, corporate pressure, and regulatory overreach has fundamentally altered the conditions under which speech is exercised in India. The report cautions that free expression has not been extinguished outright, but increasingly conditioned, surveilled, and constrained, creating a climate in which self-censorship becomes a rational act of survival.

As the report starkly concludes, the “hidden hand” shaping India’s speech landscape in 2025 is no longer subtle—it has become structural.

The complete report may be read here.

Related:                                                            

The ‘Shastra Poojan’ Project: How the ritual of weapon worship is being recast as a tool of power and hate propaganda

MP, Odisha, Delhi, Rajasthan: Right-wing outfits barge into 2 churches ahead of Christmas, attack vendors selling X’mas goodies, tensions run high

No right to live, or die: Christians in Chhattisgarh, and India under attack

Kerala: Protests erupt after RSS-BJP man’s alleged attack on children’s Christmas carol group in Palakkad

‘Brutal intimidation of Christians’ all India condemned: Bombay Catholic Sabha

The post Free Speech in India 2025: What the Free Speech Collective report reveals about a year of silencing appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The recent assault on the Editor of New Age and Editors’ Council President Nurul Kabir, and the mob attacks on the offices of the widely circulated Bangla daily Prothom Alo, and leading English-language publication Daily Star, in particular, mark a serious and deadly escalation in the ongoing cycle of violence against and intimidation of the media in Bangladesh.

The Guild has also noted with the gravest concern reports of death threats on social media against media persons, and has called on the Muhammad Yunus-led interim government in Bangladesh to immediately ensure the physical safety and well-being of journalists, and for quick action against the perpetrators of such violence.

These attacks constitute a clear violation of media freedom in South Asia and are an attempt to silence independent media voices and constrain civic discourse. The Guild calls on the authorities in Bangladesh and elsewhere to ensure that immediate action is taken to ensure that the media is allowed to function in an atmosphere free of threats, intimidations and violence.

The statement has been issued by the Guild president, Sanjay Kapoor, general secretary Raghavan Srinivasan and general secretary, Teresa Rehman.

Related:

Chaos in Bangladesh provides opportunity to right-wing social media to spread misinformation regarding Hindus, temples being attacked in the country

Kerala: BJP activists attack MediaOne TV headquarters during victory celebrations

One more attack on the Media: Local journalist thrashed and urinated upon by railway police, UP

The post Bangladesh: Assault and mob attack on journalists condemned by EGI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Academy chairman Resul Pookutty confirmed that the films will be screened as per schedule. “We are going ahead with all the film screenings as scheduled. We will fight this out. We want the IFFK and its spirit to be saved,” Pookutty told Onmanorama.

For the first time in the history of the prestigious film festival, the Central government had insisted on MEA sanction to screen a select bunch of films at IFFK. The pending censorship exemption for 19 films has prompted cancellations and schedule revisions, sparking protests.

On Tuesday, December 16, four films were given exemption, but clearance for 15 films was put on hold. Academy officials said the films for which clearance is being withheld include old classics, restored versions, Palestinian movies, Sri Lankan films, and previous winners at the IFFK.

In the first instance, on December 16, Marian Alexander Baby, the general secretary of the state’s ruling Communist Party of India (Marxist) told the media that The Union Information and Broadcasting Ministry has denied the 2025 International Film Festival of Kerala permission to screen 19 films. The list includes films about Palestine. The event in Thiruvananthapuram began on December 12 and will conclude on December 19.

According to rules it is reported that, films without a censorship certificate require an exemption from I&B to be screened at film festivals. The procedure outlined is that festival organisers submit applications with a synopsis and get an exemption certificate. IFFK organisers said they submitted applications with film summaries 10 days prior to the start of the festival. Pookutty had earlier told Onmanorama that he had reached out to Minister for External Affairs S Jaishankar to find a solution.

Four films given exemption after an initial ban:  Beef, Eagles of Republic, Heart of the Wolf, once upon a time in Gaza. Palestine 36, an Arabic and English language movie, was the inaugural film of the event. On December 12, at the inauguration ceremony, Kerala’s Cultural Affairs Minister Saji Cherian had spoken about the state’s support for the Palestinian cause. Palestinian Ambassador to India Abdallah M Abu Shawesh was a guest at the event.

At the inauguration of the festival on December 12, while paying tribute to director Shaji N Karun, who was associated with the festival until his death in April 2025, Cherian also said that the festival was a platform that “resists fascism and autocracy while celebrating freedom of speech and creative expression”. Reported Scroll.in.

Films to be screened without censorship exemption

1. A Poet: Unconcealed Poetry
2. All That’s Left of You
3. Bamako
4. Battleship Potemkin
5. Clash
6. Palestine 36
7. Red Rain
8. Riverstone
9. The Hour of The Furnaces
10. Tunnels: Sun In the Dark (Địa Đạo: Mặt Trời Trong Bóng Tối)
11. Yes
12. Flames
13. Timbuktu
14. Wajib
15. Santosh

Background

Among the other films that were denied permission are A Poet: Unconcealed Poetry, Bamako, director Sergei Eisenstein’s 1925 classic Battleship Potemkin, Spanish film Beef, Clash, Eagles of The Republic, Heart of The Wolf, Red Rain, Riverstone, The Hour of The Furnaces, Tunnels: Sun In The Dark (Địa Đạo: Mặt Trời Trong Bóng Tối), Flames, Timbuktu, Wajib and Santosh.

Battleship Potemkin and director Abderrahmane Sissako’s 2006 docudrama Bamako have been widely shown at film festivals in India. Sissako was honoured by the IFFK with a Lifetime Achievement Award this year. MA Baby, General Secretary of the ruling CPI-M said that the film Beef had been denied permission “ostensibly because of its name, even though it has nothing to do with food choices”. The former minister said that the permissions being denied to screen the films was an “absurd and lunatic attempt to derail IFFK” and the “latest example of the neo-fascist tendencies of the extreme authoritarian rule” under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat.The RSS is the parent organisation of the BJP. “Artists, filmmakers and all democratic-minded citizens must raise their voices against this disgraceful move,” he said.

The Democratic Youth Federation of India, the youth organisation affiliated to the CPI(M), held a protest at one of the main venues of the film festival.

Meanwhile Veteran filmmaker and Dadasaheb Phalke awardee, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, commenting on the attempted censorship of 19 films at the IFFK, including Battleship Potemkin, Beef and some Palestinian film was scathing in his comment, “This shows the ignorance of those making these decisions. Battleship Potemkin is an important study on the grammar of cinema.

VIDEO | Kerala: Veteran filmmaker and Dadasaheb Phalke awardee Adoor Gopalakrishnan, commenting on the hold on the screening of 19 films at IFFK, including Battleship Potemkin, Beef, and some Palestinian films, says, “It shows the ignorance of those making these decisions.… pic.twitter.com/TOCQCiElS9

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) December 15, 2025

Kerala Minister for Cultural Affairs Saji Cherian has directed State Chalachitra Academy to screen all the films at IFFK @iffklive, including the remaining 15 films for which the Union I&B ministry has not yet provided censor exemption.

Kerala Minister for Cultural Affairs Saji Cherian has directed State Chalachitra Academy to screen all the films at IFFK @iffklive , including the remaining 15 films for which the Union I&B ministry has not yet provided censor exemption.

— S.R.Praveen (@myopiclenses) December 16, 2025

Kerala refuses to bow down before the whimsical rulings of Central Board of FilmCertification that denied exemption for 19 films including classic film of Battleship Potemkin in a bid to disrupt the film festival. CM declares that all the19 films will be screened at IFFK .#IFFK

— Thomas Isaac (@drthomasisaac) December 16, 2025

Related:

TWO WAY STREET gets selected at the Pune Short Film Festival

First ever Dalit Film Festival to be held in New York in February

Terrorism at the Taj: ‘Hotel Mumbai’ pulls no punches at film festival

The post Kerala’s LDF govt to defy Centre’s diktat, to screen all films as per schedule at IFFK appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court also directed a special court to conduct trial on a day-to-day basis to record the statements of the nine remaining witnesses. Langa has been ordered to extend full cooperation with the proceedings and seek no adjournment on the ground that his petition seeking the case be quashed is pending. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has been directed to file a status report on compliance with these directions. The matter has been listed for further consideration on January 6.

Langa had been arrested by the Gujarat Police last year in a case involving allegations of Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud and was subsequently booked in multiple cases. The ED later registered a case against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). It was senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Langa. Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta alleged that Langa had extorted money, claiming that threats were made to publish adverse material if payments were not made. “A journalist is found to be extorting money… We want to file an additional counter,” Mehta told the court.

Sibal objected to the move, stating that the ED was seeking to change its stand. He argued that allegations of “Rs 68-crore fraud” were exaggerated, asserting that “it is not even Rs 68 lakh.” Sibal further pointed out that no charge sheet had been filed in the predicate offence forming the basis of the PMLA case. “I have been in custody since October 2024. For what offence? It is not murder,” he submitted, calling allegations of influencing witnesses “shocking”.

Sibal also alleged that crucial documents had not been furnished to the defence, stating that there was no supplementary complaint and that the prosecution could not “have it both ways”. Finally after heated exchanges in court and taking note of the fact that only nine witnesses remain to be examined, the court granted interim bail. During a brief exchange after the order, Mehta reiterated the allegation of extortion, to which Sibal responded by suggesting that industrialists were targeting journalists. Mehta denied any political motive, stating that the prosecution was acting purely in a professional capacity. When the exchange escalated, the CJI intervened, stressing that the trial must not be delayed and cautioning Langa against misusing his position as a journalist. Sibal responded that any such violation would be grounds for cancellation of bail.

The Gujarat high court had denied bail to Langa following which he had approached the Supreme Court.

Related:

“This system breaks the body when it cannot break the spirit” — Ipsa Shatakshi on her jailed husband, journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh

One more attack on the Media: Local journalist thrashed and urinated upon by railway police, UP

SC’s denial of bail to journalist Rupesh Singh once again showcases how the Court looks at bail under UAPA, with varying consistency

The post Interim bail to Gujarat journalist Mahesh Langa: SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.