Complaint and allegations

The application, filed under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), was moved by Manisha Pande on behalf of six complainants, all media professionals associated with the digital platform Newslaundry. The complainants alleged that Mitra had, through a series of posts on his X handle, repeatedly used sexually derogatory language to describe them, including referring to them as “prostitutes” and characterising their workplace in deeply offensive and demeaning terms.

The complaint specifically relied on multiple tweets, including one dated April 28, 2025, containing explicit and abusive language directed at the organisation and its women employees. Another tweet dated February 8, 2025, targeted Pande individually with sexually explicit and degrading remarks. Screenshots of these posts were placed on record before the Court.

Court’s Findings: “Sexually coloured remarks” and prima facie offence

Judicial Magistrate First Class Bhanu Pratap Singh, after examining the material on record, found that the content of the tweets clearly fell within the category of “sexually coloured remarks.” The Court noted that the language used was not merely offensive but carried a clear intent to demean and insult the dignity of the complainants, particularly as one of the tweets explicitly named Manisha Pande.

On this basis, the Court held that the allegations, supported by documentary material, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences under:

• Section 75(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which penalises sexually coloured remarks, and
• Section 79 of the BNS, which deals with acts, intended to insult the modesty of a woman.

The Court’s reasoning underscores a recognition that online speech, when sexually abusive and targeted, can attract serious penal consequences under criminal law.

Necessity of police investigation in cyber context

The court order emphasised on the need for a police investigation, particularly given the digital nature of the alleged offences. Observing that the acts were committed in cyberspace, the Court held that investigative intervention was necessary to:

• Verify the authenticity and ownership of the X account from which the tweets originated, and
• Trace and recover the electronic devices used to publish the content.

Court criticises inadequate police response

The Court also expressed dissatisfaction with the Action Taken Report (ATR) filed by the police. It noted that the report failed to consider the specific tweets relied upon by the complainants, thereby rendering the response incomplete and inadequate.

In light of its findings, the Court directed the Station House Officer of Malviya Nagar Police Station to:

• Register an FIR against Abhijit Iyer Mitra under Sections 75(3) and 79 of the BNS, and
• File a compliance report by May 4, 2026.

The application under Section 175(3) BNSS was accordingly disposed of.

Parallel defamation proceedings before Delhi High Court

The criminal proceedings arise alongside a pending civil defamation suit before the Delhi High Court, where the complainants have sought a public apology and damages amounting to ₹2 crore. In those proceedings, the journalists have contended that Mitra’s posts were not only defamatory but also deliberately malicious and intended to harm their professional reputation and dignity.

The High Court had earlier taken note of the objectionable content and reportedly admonished Mitra, following which the posts in question were taken down. An application seeking rejection of the defamation suit remains pending adjudication.

The order may be read here:

Related:

From Cow Slaughter to “Public Order”: Allahabad High Court’s expanding use of preventive detention

Victory for Forest Rights: Allahabad HC recognises land claims of Tharu Tribes, strikes down decision of DLC

An Adivasi woman once in bonded labour now serves her village as a Sarpanch

Delhi, Mumbai: Media organisations sharply criticise UNI eviction

The post Delhi court orders FIR against Abhijit Iyer Mitra for sexually abusive posts targeting women journalists appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Yet, almost as quickly as the legal process began, the case moved beyond its evidentiary foundations. Across television debates, digital media platforms, and social media networks, it was reframed as something far more expansive: a coordinated religious conspiracy, a conversion racket, even what some political figures and commentators began calling “corporate jihad.” These framings did not emerge from the FIRs, nor from confirmed findings of the investigation. Instead, they were constructed through a mix of speculation, political rhetoric, and amplified media narratives.

Media coverage and television debates across channels began invoking terms like “corporate jihad” and “love jihad” shortly after the first FIR was filed on March 26, 2026, even as the investigation was still in its initial stages. The first FIR centred on a complaint filed by a 23-year-old employee at Tata Consultancy Services’ Nashik unit, who alleged that a colleague, Danish Shaikh, had induced her into a relationship on the false promise of marriage, engaged in a physical relationship with her, made derogatory remarks about Hindu deities, and spoke in praise of Islam. According to Newslaundry. she further alleged that she later discovered he was already married with two children. These framings, which did not appear in the FIRs themselves, played a key role in shifting the narrative from specific allegations to a broader, and as yet unsubstantiated, claim of organised conspiracy.

This trajectory is not without precedent. The murder of Shraddha Walkar—a case that was, at its core, one of intimate partner violence and extreme gender-based brutality—was similarly pulled into a communal frame in sections of media and public discourse. What should have remained a conversation about violence against women, coercive relationships, and systemic failures was, in many instances, recast as evidence of a larger religious conspiracy. The language of “love jihad,” which had circulated in political discourse earlier, found renewed force in Maharashtra in the aftermath of that case. It was no longer invoked as an abstract claim; it was anchored to a specific, widely publicised crime.

Detailed report may be read here.

The consequences of that shift were not merely rhetorical. The communal framing of the Walkar case fed into mobilisation on the ground, with far-right groups organising rallies and demonstrations that explicitly linked individual acts of violence to broader claims of religious targeting. These mobilisations, in turn, contributed to a political climate in which the idea of regulating interfaith relationships—particularly those involving conversion—gained renewed traction. Over time, this discourse fed into legislative developments, including the push for and eventual passage of strict anti-conversion frameworks in Maharashtra. What began as a criminal case involving one victim and one accused thus became part of a larger ideological and policy arc.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

The pattern is instructive. Individual acts of violence or alleged wrongdoing are lifted out of their specific contexts and embedded within broader narratives about community, identity, and threat. In the process, the nature of the case itself changes. What begins as a question of individual accountability and institutional responsibility is transformed into a story about collective identity and civilisational conflict. The focus shifts away from the victim, the evidence, and the mechanisms of justice, and towards questions of community, intent, and imagined networks.

The TCS Nashik case now sits within this pattern. Its rapid reframing as a case of organised religious conspiracy echoes earlier moments where gender-based violence or criminal allegations were communalised to serve broader political narratives. To understand it fully, it must be read along two tracks—what the FIRs and investigation actually establish, and what the public narrative has turned it into. The distance between these two is not incidental; it is the story itself.

The Genesis of the FIRs: Intervention, mobilisation, and legal framing

What remains crucial—but often underexplored—in the public telling of the case is the genesis of the FIRs themselves. The trajectory from an individual complaint to the registration of nine FIRs within days raises important questions not only about the allegations, but also about how the case entered the criminal justice system.

According to statements made to Newslaundry, Nitin Gaikwad, a local leader affiliated with the Shiv Sena, acknowledged that he and members of Hindutva groups were involved from the very beginning. He stated that they met the complainant and “counselled her for at least two to three days,” after which they accompanied her to the police station to register the FIR. He further claimed that “all Hindu organisations” had come together in this process under the banner of a united “Sakal Hindu Samaj,” though he did not name specific groups.

Gaikwad also indicated that this involvement did not end with the filing of the first complaint. He stated that they continued to assist the police by identifying other individuals and sharing information, following which further action was taken. This account suggests that the case evolved not solely through institutional mechanisms, but through a combination of community mobilisation, political involvement, and police action.

The first FIR reportedly named three individuals. In the span of the following week, eight additional FIRs were registered, all at the same police station, with some filed in rapid succession, including multiple complaints in a single night. The pattern and pace of these filings point to a case that quickly expanded in scope, moving from a single complaint to a cluster of allegations involving multiple accused.

Instead, several FIRs invoke Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)—the provision relating to acts done in furtherance of common intention. This suggests that the police are, at least in part, examining the allegations through the lens of possible coordinated conduct among individuals, rather than as evidence of a broader, ideologically driven conversion network.

This brings the focus back to a critical question: do allegations of workplace sexual harassment—undoubtedly grave and demanding institutional accountability—necessarily require immediate criminalisation through police intervention, particularly when workplace redressal mechanisms exist? Or does the route through which these complaints were mobilised and formalised reflect a more complex interplay of legal process, social intervention, and political framing?

Data from the Maharashtra State Commission for Women for 2023–24 provides important context for understanding how workplace-related complaints are typically registered and addressed. Out of a total of 12,019 complaints handled during the year, the overwhelming majority relate to marital disputes (4059 cases) and broader social issues, including rape (2940 cases). In comparison, complaints specifically categorised as sexual harassment at the workplace number just 69, with 44 disposed of during the same period. This indicates that while such cases are serious, they form a relatively small proportion of the overall complaints landscape.

A broader category of “harassment at the workplace” records 667 complaints, suggesting that workplace grievances are more frequently framed in terms of general harassment, hostility, or discrimination rather than strictly sexual misconduct. At the same time, the disposal rate across categories remains relatively high, with over 10,000 complaints resolved. However, sexual harassment cases show a comparatively slower rate of disposal, pointing to the complexity and sensitivity often involved in such matters, including evidentiary challenges and institutional processes.

This data also offers insight into how such complaints are usually processed. Workplace harassment cases are, in most instances, expected to be addressed through internal mechanisms such as POSH committees and institutional grievance systems, with criminal law typically invoked in more escalated or severe circumstances. The relatively low number of cases reaching the Commission under the category of sexual harassment suggests either under-reporting, reliance on internal processes, or both.

Against this backdrop, the TCS Nashik case—marked by the rapid filing of multiple FIRs within a short span—appears unusual in its trajectory. The scale and speed of criminalisation stand in contrast to broader trends, raising questions not about the seriousness of the allegations themselves, but about the process through which workplace complaints move from internal grievance to criminal prosecution, and whether that transition, in this instance, followed the typical institutional path.

The answer to that question does not diminish the seriousness of the allegations. But it does underscore that the making of the case—how it was initiated, expanded, and framed—is as important to examine as the allegations themselves.

The Legal Core: What the FIRs actually establish

The legal foundation of the case rests on nine FIRs registered between March 26 and April 3, 2026, across Deolali Camp and Mumbai Naka police stations. These FIRs, taken together, form the only formal basis on which the case currently stands, and any assessment of the matter must begin with them.

The first FIR, registered at Deolali Camp Police Station, outlines a relationship between the complainant and the primary accused that allegedly evolved from a prior acquaintance into a personal and intimate association. According to the complaint, the accused established sexual relations with the complainant under the promise of marriage, a promise that she later discovered to be deceptive when she was informed by another woman that the accused was already married and had children. The FIR further records that during the course of their interactions, discussions relating to religion took place, and certain remarks were perceived by the complainant as derogatory towards Hindu beliefs. It also alleges that the complainant faced pressure and intimidation in connection with both the relationship and its possible disclosure.

As with all FIRs, these allegations represent the complainant’s version of events. They initiate a legal process but do not constitute proof. Their veracity must be tested through investigation and, ultimately, adjudication.

In the days that followed, eight additional FIRs were registered. These complaints describe a range of alleged misconduct within the workplace, including unwanted physical contact, inappropriate remarks, coercion, and the misuse of authority by senior employees. Some FIRs also refer to behaviour perceived as affecting religious sentiments, and in at least one instance, a male complainant alleged that he was pressured in relation to religious practices. The FIR compilation indicates that these allegations span a period from 2022 to 2026 and involve multiple accused individuals, some of whom are named across more than one complaint.

The sections invoked under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita include provisions relating to sexual harassment, outraging modesty, criminal intimidation, and acts affecting religious sentiments. Taken together, the FIRs suggest the possibility of a pattern of alleged misconduct within the workplace. At the same time, they do not establish guilt, nor do they conclusively demonstrate the existence of any organised conspiracy. This distinction remains central, even as it is frequently blurred in public discourse.

The Investigation: Scope, Method, and Limits

The Nashik Police constituted a Special Investigation Team to examine the allegations. As part of the investigation, several accused individuals were arrested, statements were recorded before magistrates, and digital and documentary evidence began to be scrutinised.

What makes the trajectory of this investigation particularly unusual is its point of origin. As reported in Hindustan Times through its article dated April 13, the case did not begin with a formal workplace complaint or even an immediate allegation of harassment filed with the police. Instead, it appears to have been triggered by a complaint from a political party worker regarding a woman employee’s religious practices. In the report of Times of India dated April 16, it was provided that according to Nashik City Police, the complaint alleged that a Hindu woman in her early 20s had begun following Islamic practices under workplace influence. This led to a covert police operation, during which personnel were reportedly deployed undercover within the workplace. It was only after this phase that the first FIR was registered on March 26, followed by additional complaints.

As the investigation progressed, the SIT examined not only the allegations in the FIRs but also the functioning of internal workplace mechanisms, particularly the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) framework. The role of supervisory personnel, including HR officials, came under scrutiny in light of allegations that complaints may have been discouraged or ignored.

Crucially, police statements reported indicate that, at this stage, there is no confirmed evidence of any organised or externally funded conversion network linked to the case. While inputs have been sought from agencies such as the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA), this appears to be a response to claims circulating in the public domain rather than confirmation of those claims.

This distinction—between investigating allegations and endorsing narratives—remains one of the most important, yet least emphasised, aspects of the case.

The Company Response: Institutional responsibility under scrutiny

TCS, in its official communications, has stated that it has taken the matter seriously, suspending or terminating employees named in the FIRs and cooperating fully with law enforcement authorities. The company has reiterated its commitment to a zero-tolerance policy towards harassment and has initiated an internal inquiry.

Public statement by Mr. K. Krithivasan, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director, related to the recent matter in Nashik. All details here: https://t.co/sOEGI7jmtV pic.twitter.com/iTfu1yeCuz

— Tata Consultancy Services (@TCS) April 17, 2026

At the same time, the case raises deeper questions about institutional responsibility. Several accounts since April 14, including those reported by outlets such as NDTV, suggested that employees who experienced harassment may not have found effective redress through internal mechanisms. If complaints were indeed raised and not acted upon—or if employees felt unable to use formal channels—it would point to significant gaps in the implementation of POSH guidelines.

The role of HR personnel is particularly significant in this context, especially because one of the most widely circulated claims in the case—that Nida Khan was the HR head—has been explicitly contradicted by both company statements and subsequent reporting. In the early days of the controversy, several media reports and television debates repeatedly described Nida Khan as an “HR manager” or even the central authority responsible for handling complaints. 

A detailed report by AltNews dated April 18 showed that since April 14, 2026, NDTV reporters claimed that Nida Khan was an HR official at TCS Nashik. The same claim was made in multiple bulletins on the channel by Shiv Aroor.  

However, a report by Times of India as well as the statement of TCS of April 17 clarified that she held no leadership responsibilities, was not part of the HR structure, and had no role in recruitment or institutional decision-making. Instead, as per Hindustan Times dated April 17, she was employed as a process associate/telecaller at the BPO unit, not a senior managerial figure.

Godi Media Anchor @anjanaomkashyap says Nida Khan is the main Mastermind and was a HR Manager. But Nida Khan was an employee and not HR Manager. HR manager was Ashwini Chainani, the HR head and operations manager of the company who was arrested recently. Ashwini Chainani is… pic.twitter.com/Y3M7tHzJtf

— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) April 17, 2026

In the #Nashik #TCS case, not only Arnab Goswami’s Republic made Nida Khan a “terrorist,” even Vijeta Dahiya, script writer for Dhruv Rathee, went a step further and called her and other accused “Islamist terrorists,” dragging an entire religion into it.

From prime-time TV to… pic.twitter.com/iDBTP4pFeW

— Meer Faisal (@meerfaisal001) April 17, 2026

‘दबंग मैम’ निदा खान ऑफिस में सबको सिखाती थी बुर्का पहनना, बड़ा ही खूंखार था TCS एचआर हेड का प्लान

नासिक के TCS बीपीओ में ‘दबंग मैम’ कही जाने वाली HR मैनेजर निदा खान की तलाश तेज हो गई है. उस पर धर्मांतरण और यौन उत्पीड़न के गंभीर आरोप लगे हैं. FIR में दावा है कि वह कर्मचारियों को… pic.twitter.com/xDARj2rURy

— AajTak (@aajtak) April 16, 2026

TCS में घर्मांतरण के खुलासे का पार्ट-2
TCS में HR मैनेजर निदा खान के कारनामों की पूरी रिपोर्ट#BlackAndWhiteOnAajTak #TCS #CorporateControversy #HRManager | @anjanaomkashyap pic.twitter.com/8jZLVLSvvn

— AajTak (@aajtak) April 16, 2026

This distinction is crucial because the investigation has, in fact, identified actual HR officials—including a senior HR functionary linked to the POSH Internal Committee—whose roles are under scrutiny for allegedly ignoring or failing to act on complaints. Yet, in public discourse, the focus disproportionately shifted to Nida Khan as the “face” or even “mastermind” of the case, often accompanied by an inflated portrayal of her authority.

The result is a telling gap between institutional responsibility and narrative construction. While those with formal power within the workplace structure—particularly within HR—are central to questions of accountability, public attention has instead been redirected toward an individual whose organisational role was misrepresented, reinforcing a narrative that is not fully aligned with the evidentiary record.

Victim Narratives: Allegations of control, coercion, and silence

Accounts from complainants and witnesses, as reported in media interviews including those aired by NDTV, describe a workplace environment marked by control, coercion, and silence. One employee recounted being isolated from colleagues and made to work separately, while others described a culture in which younger employees were allegedly targeted and subjected to inappropriate behaviour.

These narratives also suggest that attempts to raise concerns internally did not lead to meaningful intervention. In some accounts, employees described a sense that even HR mechanisms were ineffective or inaccessible. Such descriptions, if borne out by investigation, would indicate not only individual misconduct but a systemic environment in which alleged abuse could persist.

These accounts are serious and must be treated as such. At the same time, they remain part of an ongoing investigation and must be evaluated through due process rather than selectively amplified or reframed to fit broader narratives.

The Narrative Shift: From workplace crime to communal conspiracy

As the case unfolded, a significant shift occurred in how it was publicly framed. What began as allegations against specific individuals was rapidly transformed into a narrative about an entire community.

Television debates, including those hosted on prominent channels such as played a significant role in shaping the public narrative around the case. Primetime discussions on these platforms frequently moved beyond the contents of the FIRs and the scope of the police investigation, framing the allegations within broader themes of religious targeting and organised conspiracy. In several instances, the language used in these debates echoed terms such as “conversion racket” and “corporate jihad,” often without clear attribution to verified investigative findings.

Grooming Syndicate Busted

The Hindu women employees in TCS were allegedly groomed systematically through a WhatsApp group formed by their team leads. They approached TCS authorities, including the HR manager, multiple times—raising complaints of rape, forced conversion, being… pic.twitter.com/IbZxUUkEfl

— TIMES NOW (@TimesNow) April 14, 2026

This mode of coverage did not merely report on the case; it actively contributed to its reframing. By foregrounding speculative links and emphasising identity over individual conduct, these debates helped shift the focus away from the specifics of the allegations and towards a generalised communal narrative, shaping public perception in ways that extended far beyond the evidentiary record.

Political figures played a visible role in this shift. On April 17, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis publicly framed the case in broader ideological terms while responding to media queries. While noting that Tata Consultancy Services had taken the allegations seriously, he described the matter as a cause for concern, suggesting it pointed to what he termed “corporate jihad.” In his remarks to NDTV, Fadnavis linked the case to earlier narratives such as “love jihad” and “land jihad,” arguing that the present allegations reflected a new and serious manifestation of a similar pattern.

Political responses to the case extended beyond formal statements of concern and moved into broader ideological framing. Devendra Fadnavis’s spouse, Amruta Fadnavis, in remarks reported by The New Indian Express on April 18, linked the allegations to wider claims of “forceful conversion” and “love jihad,” urging women to remain vigilant and framing the issue in terms of cultural awareness and the need to reinforce traditional values among youth.

Maharashtra minister and Bharatiya Janata Party leader Nitesh Rane, speaking to the press in comments reported by Press Trust of India on April 16, described the case as indicative of a growing phenomenon he termed “corporate jihad.” He further suggested that employment spaces were being misused for religious conversion and argued that prioritising Hindus in hiring had become “the need of the hour” to counter such alleged activities.

Taken together, these statements illustrate how the case was not only treated as a matter of criminal investigation but also embedded within a larger political narrative—one that framed the allegations as part of a broader pattern of religious targeting, despite the absence of conclusive findings to that effect in the investigation at the time. These statements were subsequently amplified across television and digital platforms, contributing to the rapid communalisation of the case.

Amid the controversy surrounding the allegations at the TCS Nashik unit, The Print report dated April 21 provided that that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, escalated the issue beyond the immediate case by reaching out to major industry bodies. Its general secretary, Bajrang Bagda, wrote to organisations such as FICCI, CII, ASSOCHAM, NASSCOM and others, urging immediate steps to address women’s safety in corporate workplaces. 

While referring to the ongoing SIT probe into multiple FIRs alleging harassment, coercion, and other offences, Bagda framed the issue as one that had eroded public trust in corporate environments. Significantly, he argued that the allegations should not be seen as isolated acts by individuals, but as part of a “collective conspiracy”, a claim that extends beyond what has been established in the investigation so far.

This transformation did not merely add a layer of interpretation; it altered the nature of the story itself, shifting the focus from individual accountability to communal identity. Even the highest court in the country was not left out of this, with Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay filing a plea in the Supreme Court on April 16, 2026, requesting that deceitful religious conversions be classified as “terrorism” and “organized crime,” following reports of forced conversions and sexual harassment of female employees at a TCS facility in Nashik. The plea calls for stringent central action, special courts, and to treat the issue as a threat to national security. Ashwini Upadhyay has formerly also been spokesperson for the Delhi unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). 

You may find CJP’s Hate Busters on four of Upadhyaya’s claims here, here, here, and here.  

The Making of a “Mastermind”: The case of Nida Khan

No aspect of this transformation is more illustrative than the portrayal of Nida Khan. In the FIRs, she is named as one among several accused, with allegations that relate primarily to interactions and remarks perceived as religiously offensive. There is no clear indication in the FIRs that she held a position of authority within the organisation or that she exercised control over institutional processes.

However, in media coverage and public discourse, she has frequently been described as the “mastermind” of the case. Television debates and social media commentary, as evident from the links attached above, have at times portrayed her as an HR manager or a central figure orchestrating a larger conspiracy. This portrayal stands in contrast to clarifications issued by the company, which state that she was a process associate and did not hold a managerial or HR role.

TCS Nashik case ‘mastermind’ Nida Khan’s bail hearing likely today pic.twitter.com/1bDo4yQgae

— NDTV (@ndtv) April 20, 2026

Nashik BPO Case | Who Is Nida Khan? Mastermind Behind Harassment Cover-Up Under Police Lens

Watch video: https://t.co/qWRbVPjzqc#NidaKhan #Nashik #TCS

— News18 (@CNNnews18) April 17, 2026

Nashik ‘Conversion’ Row | First picture: Nida Khan alleged mastermind of the gang is cureently absconding@sujata_dwivedi shares details with @ankit_tyagi01 pic.twitter.com/xVOINfq5Hu

— NDTV (@ndtv) April 14, 2026

In a further development, reports indicated that Nida Khan was in Mumbai and was pregnant with her first child. Even as the Nashik Police’s Special Investigation Team continued its probe and the National Commission for Women took cognisance of the matter, sections of the media continued to describe her as the “mastermind” of the case.

This characterisation, however, has been contested by her legal counsel. Advocate Baba Sayyad pointed out that her name appears in only one complaint and that the FIRs do not substantiate claims of a larger conspiracy. He further clarified that she was not part of the HR structure but worked as a process associate/telecaller, a position also reflected in company records. According to him, the primary allegation against her relates to remarks affecting religious sentiments, raising questions about the disproportionate portrayal of her role in public discourse.

According to the report by Hindustan Times dated April 17  Nida Khan is not absconding in the conventional sense being portrayed in some media narratives. She is reported to be in Mumbai, at her residence with her husband, where she had moved earlier this year after her marriage. Her family and lawyer have also claimed that police had not visited their residence looking for her at the time of reporting. This re-framing or ‘clarification’ on Nida Khan’s position in the company came several days after reports in news channels and newspapers, often showing her photographs and name, framed her as the ‘mastermind.’ The damage then, in a sense, had been done.

This discrepancy highlights how narratives can elevate certain individuals into symbolic figures, often in ways that are not supported by the evidentiary record. At the same time, individuals who may have held actual institutional authority—such as HR officials with decision-making power—have received comparatively less attention in public discourse.

It is essential to note here that on April 20, Nida Khan was denied interim relief by a Nashik court.

Media Conduct: Language, framing, and responsibility

The role of the media in shaping the trajectory of this case has been central. One of the most concerning aspects of coverage has been the frequent collapse of the distinction between allegation and fact. Reports and debates have often presented claims as established truths, omitting qualifiers such as “alleged” and thereby pre-empting the outcome of the investigation.

Equally significant has been the shift in framing from individual conduct to communal identity. Instead of focusing on specific allegations against named individuals, many narratives have generalised the case into a broader story about Muslim men targeting Hindu women. This framing transforms a legal case into a communal narrative, with implications that extend far beyond the facts of the case itself.

The amplification of unverified claims has further contributed to this distortion. Assertions about international links, funding networks, and organised conversion efforts have circulated widely across television and social media platforms, despite the absence of corroborating evidence. In some cases, even routine investigative steps—such as seeking inputs from central agencies—have been interpreted as confirmation of these claims.

This pattern reflects not just a failure of verification but a broader shift in how stories are framed and consumed.

The APCR Findings: A critical intervention in a distorted narrative

The fact-finding report by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) stands out as one of the most detailed attempts to bring the TCS Nashik case back to its evidentiary core. Based on field visits, court observations, interactions with lawyers and families, and a close reading of FIRs alongside media coverage, the report maps a widening gap between what is formally on record and what has come to dominate public discourse.

At its heart, the report makes a crucial clarification: the case, as reflected in the nine FIRs, concerns serious allegations of workplace misconduct—including sexual harassment, coercion, intimidation, and conduct perceived as affecting religious sentiments. These allegations, spanning multiple complainants and a period of several years, are undeniably grave and warrant thorough investigation. At the same time, the report underscores that FIRs represent claims to be tested, not conclusions, and must be evaluated through due process.

What the report does not find, however, is equally significant. It notes that there is, at present, no conclusive material establishing the existence of any organised or systematic religious conversion network—a claim that has nevertheless come to dominate media and political narratives. Terms such as “corporate jihad,” widely used in television debates and public commentary, are identified as originating not from the FIRs or the investigation, but from interpretation and amplification.

The report also documents the trajectory of the investigation itself. A Special Investigation Team has been constituted, multiple arrests have been made, and police have examined each complaint individually. Even the involvement of agencies such as the ATS or NIA, it notes, has been framed as precautionary rather than confirmatory. Crucially, authorities have not, at this stage, substantiated claims of a coordinated or externally funded operation, despite the prominence of such assertions in public discourse.

At the same time, the report does not minimise the allegations made by complainants. It records accounts that point to a hostile work environment, possible targeting of employees, and a lack of effective institutional response. This is juxtaposed with the company’s position that no formal complaints were received through internal POSH mechanisms prior to the FIRs, highlighting a potential gap between lived experiences and formal reporting structures. Whether this reflects under-reporting, institutional failure, or both remains a key question.

A particularly striking aspect of the report is its focus on how individuals have been portrayed in the public sphere. It notes that Nida Khan has repeatedly been described as the “mastermind” of the case and as an HR official with significant authority—claims that are not consistently supported by the FIRs or company records. In fact, available information indicates that she held a non-managerial role, raising concerns about how her position and involvement have been reshaped to fit a broader narrative.

More broadly, the report highlights the role of media ecosystems—particularly television debates and social media—in amplifying unverified claims, including assertions of international links, funding networks, and coordinated targeting. It identifies a dual media landscape, where factual reporting based on police statements coexists with speculative and often hyperbolic commentary, creating confusion and polarisation.

The report ultimately calls for a return to evidence-based investigation and responsible public discourse. It urges authorities to clearly distinguish between criminal allegations and unverified labels, recommends closer scrutiny of workplace grievance mechanisms, and cautions political and media actors against communalising the issue. Its core message is straightforward but significant: that the integrity of the investigation—and the possibility of justice—depends on maintaining a clear boundary between what is being investigated and what is being imagined.

Voices of Dissent and Solidarity: A counter-current emerges

Amid the dominant narrative that has framed the case in sharply communal terms, a quieter but significant counter-current has begun to emerge—one that calls for restraint, due process, and a return to facts. Across social media platforms, independent commentators, academics, and civil society voices have expressed concern not only about the allegations themselves, but about the manner in which the case has been publicly framed.

One such intervention came from Sumathi, whose widely circulated post reflected a tone markedly different from the prevailing discourse. Addressing Nida Khan directly, she wrote from the standpoint of shared humanity rather than communal identity, expressing remorse for the suffering faced and emphasising that fear and isolation are not burdens any individual should be made to carry. The post underscored a key point often missing in louder debates—that regardless of the outcome of the investigation, the dignity and rights of individuals must remain central.

Dear Nida Khan,

As an Indian Hindu woman, I lower my head in deep remorse for the suffering you have faced. Such pain cannot be confined to one faith; it resonates within the shared conscience of us all. When a woman is forced to carry fear along with the life she nurtures, it… https://t.co/j8cMhy4Pmz

— Prof Sumathi (@ProfSumathi) April 19, 2026

Similar sentiments have been echoed by other users and commentators who have questioned the speed with which the case was communalised. Some have pointed out inconsistencies in media reporting, others have highlighted the lack of verified evidence for sweeping claims, and many have simply urged that the investigation be allowed to proceed without prejudice. These voices do not deny the seriousness of the allegations; rather, they resist their transformation into a broader indictment of an entire community.

Nida Khan, 26, is pregnant, is in Mumbai, as per her family.

She has been witch hunted as mastermind of running religious conversion racket at TCS bpo in Nashik by many media houses.

TCS clarified she was working as a tellecaller n not in any leadership role to have influence…

— Varsha Torgalkar (@varshasuman) April 18, 2026

This emerging strand of solidarity is important for what it represents. It signals that even within a highly polarised media environment, there remains space—however limited—for empathetic engagement, critical questioning, and a refusal to collapse individual cases into communal narratives.

What Is at Stake: Justice, truth, and public harm

The stakes in this case are both immediate and far-reaching. If the allegations are substantiated, the victims are entitled to justice, and the accused must be held accountable in accordance with the law. Institutions must also answer for any failures that allowed such conduct to occur.

At the same time, the communalisation of the case carries its own risks. When narratives outpace evidence, investigations can be distorted by public pressure, due process may be compromised, and entire communities may be subjected to collective suspicion.

Perhaps most importantly, the pursuit of justice itself may be undermined. When cases are reframed through communal lenses, the focus shifts away from evidence and accountability and towards identity and ideology.

Conclusion: The danger of stories that outrun evidence

The TCS Nashik case remains under investigation. The facts are still being established, and the outcome is yet to be determined. Yet, in the public sphere, a conclusion has already been constructed—one that extends far beyond the evidence currently available.

This is the central danger. When allegations are transformed into narratives, and narratives into communal truths, the space for careful, evidence-based inquiry begins to shrink. In such an environment, justice is no longer the outcome of a process; it becomes collateral damage.

There is no contradiction in insisting that serious allegations be investigated thoroughly while also rejecting their communalisation. On the contrary, both are necessary.

Because without accuracy, there can be no accountability. And without accountability, there can be no justice.

Related:

Allahabad High Court flags surge in “false” conversion firs, seeks accountability from UP government

Censorship and the Drumbeats of Hate: Mapping the state of free speech ahead of the 2026 polls

Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion Bill: Legislating suspicion in the name of “love jihad”

The post From FIRs to “Corporate Jihad”: How the TCS Nashik case was transformed from an investigation into a communal narrative appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In its statement, the DUJ said that the body is “outraged at the manhandling of UNI journalists by the Delhi Police on March 20, 2026. The Police entered the UNI newsrooms in large numbers and demanded that journalists peacefully working the night shift immediately leave the premises. They were told UNI was being evicted following a High Court Order. No Order was shown.

“When the surprised journalists asked for time to inform their management, many of them were manhandled. Women journalists too were physically pushed out as video footage reveals. No time was given for people to retrieve their personal papers and belongings. We severely condemn this arbitrary action.

UNI, the second oldest news agency in the country, has been severely mismanaged over the past decades.  It was the responsibility of the current management to inform employees of the High Court Order that came earlier in the day, anticipate the eviction and protect employees from harm. Regrettably, they did not do so.”

The DUJ statement issued on March 21 states that the prime land on which India’s oldest news agency stands has long been “eyed” by the powers that be and powerful corporate owned media organisations vying for both control and ownership. The statement has been issued by Sujata Madhok, President, SK Pande, Vice-President and AM Jigeesh, General Secretary.

“By cancelling the lease,” said the DUJ, the Union Government has dealt a death blow to the news agency by cancelling the lease.

In the past the Government tried to change the lease conditions and bring in other media players, promising them a share in a new building to be constructed on the plot. Earlier UNI managements challenged these orders in court. Meanwhile, the agency struggled financially, especially after the government withdrew subscriptions for Prasar Bharati and other government bodies. UNI employees suffered the consequences, with years of delayed salaries and other dues.

Years of struggle in and outside courts by employees, including retirees and those who had left UNI, the agency was declared bankrupt by the National Company Law Tribunal. It was then taken over by The Statesman who paid a small percentage of their dues to the employees.

The DUJ has called upon The Statesman management to fulfil its responsibilities, continue to run the agency and pay the journalists and other employees their full dues.

Meanwhile, the Editors Guild of India (EGI) strongly condemns the use of excessive force, as well as the undue haste shown in implementing a High Court order cancelling the allotment of land on which the premises of United News of India, one of India’s oldest independent news agencies, was situated, and allowing the Land and Development Office of the Union Housing and Urban Affairs Ministry to re-take possession of the land.

The Guild statement also states that, “While the Guild does not question the need to implement the High Court’s order, what is disturbing is the lack of due process, and the manifestly excessive display of force by the authorities in executing the Court’s directions. As per reports, the order was pronounced in Court at around 1.30 PM on Friday, March 20, 2026.”

“Within hours, and even before the order was made available on the Court’s website, a force of hundreds of police and paramilitary personnel had arrived at the UNI’s premises. Journalists, including female staff, were forcibly evicted in the midst of carrying out their duties. The journalists have asserted that no notice was shown to them, and that the authorities refused to allow time for the UNI management to arrive, or even allow journalists to collect their personal effects before the premises were sealed. They have also alleged that some staff, including some women journalists, were manhandled in the process, a charge which the Delhi Police have denied.

The alacrity with which the authorities reacted, as well as the overwhelming display of force, sends a chilling message to the media. The action has not only halted the dissemination of news to UNI’s subscribers, but has also cast a shadow over the future of the organisation, and the careers of hundreds of journalists.” The EGI further has urged the authorities to exercise greater restraint, and desist from actions which restrict the freedom of media to operate and carry out its functions in a democracy. The EGI statement has been issued by Sanjay Kapoor, President and Raghavan Srinivasan, the Treasurer.

Meanwhile on the same date, March 21, the Mumbai Press Club has strongly condemned the sealing of the office of United News of India (UNI) in Delhi, an action that has caused deep concern across the media fraternity.

The Mumbai Press Club statement released on ‘X’ states that, “Reports of staff being forcibly evicted without being allowed to collect their personal belongings, the alleged manhandling of female journalists, and misconduct by certain Delhi Police personnel—including claims of intoxication while on duty—are extremely disturbing. The reported abuse of individuals by police personnel and lawyers further reflects a serious breakdown of professional conduct and accountability. Such actions not only undermine the dignity and safety of journalists but also raise serious concerns about press freedom and the ability of media institutions to function without fear or intimidation.”

The Mumbai PC has “urged the authorities to ensure a prompt, impartial, and transparent inquiry into the incident, and to fix accountability for any excesses or misconduct. It is equally important to take immediate steps to restore confidence within the journalistic community and safeguard the rights and independence of the press,” says the Mumbai Press Club. Samar Khadas is currently President and Mayuresh Ganapatye the Secretary of the PC.

Related:

UP: 14-Year-Old Dalit Content Creator Ashwamit Gautam faces arrest, FIR over strong dissenting social media videos

J & K: Attempt to muzzle FoE, Media? Police summons to media, journalists

Pervasive fear, surveillance of media, spiral of anti-India sentiment in Kashmir: CCG

The post Delhi, Mumbai: Media organisations sharply criticise UNI eviction appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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.