Reports indicate that the police were instructed to register the case under new penal provisions in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act, specifically “promoting enmity between groups” (Section 196) and “acts against national integration” (Section 197), after initially declining to file an FIR, suggesting a judicial order was preferred.

The Broadcast’s Framing Under Scrutiny

In the complaint filed, Thakur argued that to deem Partition as an “unfinished project” was dangerous language that lent credence to questioning the legitimacy of Muslims who chose to remain in India after 1947.

Kashyap remarked during the programme: “यह विभाजन धर्म के आधार पर हुआ लेकिन मैं आपको दिखाती हूं कि जिस मकसद से ये विभाजन किया गया था वह मकसद कभी पूरा ही नहीं हुआ.” (This Partition happened based on religion, but I will show on the big screen that the purpose for which this Partition was carried out was never fulfilled.) She referenced migration figures that suggested that India has a population of four crore Muslims, of which only 96 Lakh migrated to Pakistan, and more Hindus migrated into India. She compared the number of Hindus emigrating from East and West Pakistan to Muslims emigrating from India. She used this as evidence that the religious basis for Partition had not been fulfilled.

The complaint points out that these numbers were inconsistent (at times 96 lakh, at other times 72 lakh) and were used to inflame division. Further, the social media caption accompanying the broadcast — “Out of 4 crores, only 96 lakh Muslims went to Pakistan! What has happened to the purpose of Partition?” — intensified the attempt at divisiveness. Thakur claimed this framing was “venomous, destructive, and divisive,” emphasizing the timing of the post, aiming to inflame possible animosity rather than facilitate debate, on the eve of Independence Day.

In a nutshell, the complaint states that the framing of the episode and selective statistics crossed the line from historical discussion to communal provocation, raising the question of Muslims’ belonging in India and undermining nation-building.

The Targeting of the Anchor, and not the Network

The complaint focuses entirely on Anjana Om Kashyap, completely ignoring the liability of the news channel and the producers of the show. This illustrates a typical prosecutorial trend: complaints about speech that airs on broadcast usually starts with the anchor, who is the most visible face of the programme. They frame the conversation and speak the words on air, which makes them the most identifiable responsible person.

Legally, this is grounded in Section 196 and Section 197 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Section 196: “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, caste, language or community, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups.”

Section 197: “Whoever, by words either spoken or written… does any act prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, regional or language groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity or which is prejudicial to the integration of India.”

As these provisions target the speaker or publisher of offending words, it is obvious that the anchor will be the first possible target. In contrast, attaching liability to the producers or the network would require some evidence of intent (at the organisational level), such as editorial instructions or policy documents, evidence that complainants are virtually never in possession of at the time of filing.

Nevertheless, broadcasters are subject to the terms of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, which disallows certain programming. Rule 6 of the Programme Code, 1994 states, programming that “offends good taste or decency; criticizes friendly countries; attacks religions or communities; or is likely to encourage or incite violence or contain anything against maintenance of law and order, or which promotes anti-national attitudes”. Enforcement of this act is administrative, with warnings, advisories, and the suspension of the transmission.

In practice, then, while anchors personify the criminal complaints through the BNS, networks face longer regulatory and civil enforcement under the Cable Act (i.e., through the NBDSA censoring channels, on multiple complaints, for coverage depicted bias). It is this distinction that explains that Kashyap is in the first position in naming; even as it remains an open question, it ought to aptly reflect organization-wide editorial responsibility.

The Need for Networks to Bear Responsibility

Although anchors are a visible part of the television programme, they do not simply determine what is “in” and “out” of a broadcast. Even when anchors say what we call “the cue,” editorial parameters on framing, tickers, and promotional captions, e.g., “Out of 4 crore Muslims, only 96 Lakh went to Pakistan! Why was the purpose of Partition not attained?” unequivocally involve producers and management as well. When we advocate that the performance of values in context rests on anchors, we obscure the ability to hold the system accountable for shared risk.

The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, provides a statutory avenue to litigate network-level liability. The 1995 Reg Act includes Rule 6 of the Programme Code stating that programmes cannot (i) attack or denigrate religions or communities or (ii) likely to encourage or incite violence. The prohibitions apply to the corporate entity as the broadcaster; the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting could issue advisories, order programming take-downs, and suspend licenses of broadcasters in violation.

The News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) decisions establish that networks do shoulder accountability, engaging even where an individual’s utterances lead to systemic failures in providing appropriate editorial guidance.

Consequently, a two-pronged strategy is required. The BNS may impose criminal liability on the anchor for their words on air, and yet there are regulatory and self-regulatory structures that can scrutinise the network. Only by joining personal and institutional accountability can remedies, or responses, be more than just a symbolic sanction and can provide robust monitoring of inciting broadcasts.

Law, Liability and the Limits of Broadcast Freedom

Anjana Om Kashyap’s complaint is not just a single incident of a journalist failing to uphold self-regulation, but part of a broader, troubling trend regarding journalism in Indian broadcast media. Over the last decade, prime time debates have blurred the line between reporting the news and inflammatory rhetoric, with news anchors embracing combative formats that normalize steady and increasing polarization. Courts and regulators have had to resort to warning or restraining these excesses, recognizing the tension between free speech, the right to express opinions, Article 19 (1) (a) the fundamental right to freely express opinion and feelings in India, and state responsibilities under Article 19(2) to reasonably restrict in the interests of harm, public order and peace.

Judicial rulings created problems with this balancing act. In the Sudarshan News “UPSC Jihad” case (2020), the Supreme Court stated free speech did not give license to cast aspersions or malign any community or individual, and restrained the broadcast temporarily pending consideration of a code of ethics. Before and after the Sudarshan News ruling, High Courts have intervened with varying balances. The Delhi High Court in 2020 cautioned broadcasters that the constitutional threshold did not allow hate violence to abide. Overall, precedential rulings show us courts are not reluctant to intervene if and when the media, as news reporting, crosses the threshold from commentary critical of violence or hate to incitement.

Interventions before the NBDSA have already illustrated the efficacy of complaints in recalibrating the course. The NBDSA, in recent years, has censured channels such as Times Now Navbharat and Zee News for coverage that was found to be partial; ordered the revocation of a misleading ticker; and noted, when addressing anchors participating in sensitive debates, that neutrality is required. These decisions clarify that journalists and anchors, as custodians of public deliberation, must practice restraint and cannot rely on the protection of free speech to underwrite their framing when it leads to communal discord.

The Lucknow case is part of a broader effort to hold mainstream media accountable for its third-party functions. Free speech is one of the pillars of democracy in India, but it is not absolute; Article 19 (2) lays out the balancing act between liberty and public order, or harmony. When behaviour or content from a newsroom turns the journalist or a news anchor into a provocateur, it creates communal discord and political polarization, which undermines the credibility of journalism, therefore, the right to free speech and academic freedom. Legal interventions – criminal complaints, Cable Act enforcement, or internal rules/regulations – are not meant to silence the press, but to remind them that the right to speak correlates with the responsibility to inform responsibly, and contribute to the common good through public deliberation.

Balancing Free Speech and Communal Harmony

The Lucknow court’s order against Anjana Om Kashyap represents a clear signal from the judiciary of rising impatience with primetime broadcasts that shift from hard news commentary to communal provocation. By doing so, the court’s action says not only that accountability of the anchor is needed, while the network is virtually let off the hook – it addresses this issue unevenly. However, this court ruling is also a possible opportunity to consider how the judicial, institutional, and experiential liability may be expanded to ensure responsibility for both anchor and network. The constitutional question still to be resolved is how to balance free speech with the state’s obligation to protect public order in a state of discontent. Speech can only be sanctioned for discomfort, not for disingenuous interruption of social harmony. For a democracy like India, the work is not to punish one anchor or one show, but rather to build systemic safeguards – through criminal law, policy regulation, and ethically responsible newsroom practice – that allow journalism to inform, interrogate, and unite stories rather than mislead and divide stories.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this has been worked on by Preksha Bothara)

Image: livelaw.in

Related

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

CJP’s NBDSA Complaints 2023: A look at the repeated violation of ethics and guidelines by Indian television channels

NBDSA cracks down on biased anchors: Orders content removal from Times Now Navbharat and Zee News based on CJP’s complaints

NBDSA cautions Times Now Navbharat to avoid presumptions in sensitive religious reporting for broadcast on “Madrasas Teachings”

CJP Impact! Two favourable orders on complaints against Sudhir Chaudhary’s ‘Black and White’ shows

The post Between Free Speech and Public Order: Dissecting the complaint against Anjana Om Kashyap appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It was not just the shops, homes, places of worship that were destroyed by the North Delhi Municipal Corportaion’s sudden demolition drive in communally sensitive Jahangirpuri. The JCB’s and bulldozers also exposed, brick by brick, the viciousness of what has come to be known as ‘godi media’, or journalists who sit in the laps of powers that be. Some came out of their air conditioned studios, once again, for a ring-side view of the suffering of the poor. Others chose to stay in the air conditioned environs and share their sheer delight at the destruction going on. They even glossed over the fact that there were many Hindu residents who stood in solidarity with their Muslim neighbours, and both suffered economic losses.

Leading from the front of what is a lesson on how not to be a journalist conversing ground zero was Aajtak anchor Anjana Om Kashyap. Reporting live next to a JCB, she began by asking if she could ride in it. That space apart from the driver of the earth mover and demolition machine is for the officials sent to carry out the demolition. That Kashyap wanted to be at the vantage point of the administration reveals another layer of her style of ‘”reporting live”.  The delight of bringing what she said were “live images from the crane that is going to demolish illegal construction”. That she had decided the status of the constructions even as the matter is in court may have its own implications.

Fourth Pillar of Democracy is part of Demolition of “Mera Bharat Mahan”. #StopBulldozingMuslimHouses pic.twitter.com/OVRRAHWxGk

— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) April 20, 2022

Fire will break out and houses will be hit hard
Our house is just a little bit here.
Madam! I am a Hindu
Anjana Om Kashyap!Have to walk from here.
This person’s voice and voice is saying that “I am a Hindu” The bulldozer sees Dharma and walks away.#StopBulldozingMuslimHouses pic.twitter.com/5nsrzrpYLf

— Ammar Akhtar farooqui (@Ammarakhtar81) April 20, 2022

While Anjana Om Kashyap was on the ground cherry picking who she wanted to speak to, ignoring the Hindu residents speaking of amity, and detailing the JCBs putting down structures in a frame by frame commentary, Navika Kumar, Kashyap’s tv anchor colleague from the rival Times Now, was having “fun” on Twitter.

Dramatic increase in demand for bulldozers. Are we increasing domestic capacity for manufacturing or will we have to depend on imports?? #JustAsking. ????

— Navika Kumar (@navikakumar) April 20, 2022

She could not help making a ‘destruction joke’. Kumar was then chastised by thousands of responses, not just from journalists, but even general users. She of course did not issue an apology nor take this offensive tweet with ‘funny’ emojis down. 

The emojis at the end of this&the tweet is insensitive Navika.
I am certain you also have worked a lifetime to build four walls that you call home. Don’t mock someone’s poverty&their pain. Violence was wrong, let law make the pronouncement of that punishment not a bulldozer. https://t.co/60qM5KoD1v

— Priyanka Chaturvedi?? (@priyankac19) April 20, 2022

You are a sick person, Navika. It takes a lifetime to build four walls you call Home. https://t.co/ff0yg4zW7Y

— Rahul Pandita (@rahulpandita) April 20, 2022

She did a full show later with the hashtag “BulldozerJustice”. She justified the demolition calling it a “precision strike on illegal structures” and said Hindu groups ‘took the initiative’ to voluntarily remove the encroachment structure of the local temple, while the Mosque had not. She then said Brinda Karat ‘made a beeline to Jahangirpuri claiming vendetta against one community’. Navika is still trending for her ‘bulldozer joke’, 24 hours after her initial comments.

#BulldozerJustice

5 days after yatra was ambushed, 7 bulldozers clear encroachment.

‘No discrimination’ in demolition, but Opposition slams ‘JCB of hate’

BJP justifies bulldozer crackdown, propaganda of ecosystem ‘razed’.@thenewshour with @navikakumar pic.twitter.com/LPkyvxYR4o

— TIMES NOW (@TimesNow) April 20, 2022

Other journalists predictably added their two bits to the online commentary. 

One hopes that the bulldozers at #Jahangirpuri will go beyond roadside mobile carts and clear out actual encroachment. pic.twitter.com/xdnMuSdZcS

— Abhijit Majumder (@abhijitmajumder) April 20, 2022

Exact spot where the #HanumanJayanti procession was attacked with stones in Jahangirpuri of Delhi. Illegal encroachments being removed. Supreme Court has stayed the demolition drive but written orders yet to reach local authorities.

pic.twitter.com/U7CvIppN0z

— Aditya Raj Kaul (@AdityaRajKaul) April 20, 2022

Related:

Brinda Karat stands tall in front of bulldozers at Jahangirpuri’s Tiananmen square moment

Jahangirpuri demolition drive: Do Supreme Court orders mean nothing to the BJP ruled Municipal Corporation?

Bengali Hindu refugee families allotted land in UP, while homes of Bengali Muslims face demolition in Delhi, Assam

72 percent of Mumbai’s mosque hold off on loudspeakers

Karnataka: Court directs FIR against hate-monger, Chandru Moger

Mob sets three houses ablaze in Agra over interfaith relationship

Karnataka: Muslim man beaten up for travelling with Hindu woman

The post Jahangirpuri: Navika Kumar, Anjana Om Kashyap demolish media credibility further appeared first on SabrangIndia.

अपने शो हल्ला बोल में अपने परिचय के दौरान ज़ुबान फिसलने का ये वीडियो ट्विटर और फेसबुक पर गैर-भाजपा के लोगों द्वारा खूब शेयर हो रहा है।

नीचे दिए गए वीडियो में आप देख सकते हैं किस तरह अंजना कह रहीं हैं, ” नमस्कार, आप देख रहे हैं हल्ला बोल आपके साथ मैं हूं अंजना ओम मोदी..हममम अंजना ओम कश्यप”

जैसे ही ये वीडियो शेयर हुआ सोशल मीडिया यूजर्स ने कहा,  ये मोदी भक्ति का नतीजा है।

ट्विटर यूर्जस ने ट्वीट करते हुए कहा, जैसे काम करते हुए आपके बॉस का नाम दिमाग में घूम रहा हो।

यूजर रोशन राय पहले थे जिन्होंने सबसे पहले इस बारे में ट्वीट किया।

यहां देखिए ट्विटर और फेसबुक यूजर्स के कुछ रिएक्शन

पढ़िए कुछ फेसबुक कमेंट-

ए पी सिंह चट्ठा: एक समय था जब आजतक की साख शीर्ष पर थी, लेकिन अब इन्होंने खुद को भाजपा के लिए खुद को बेच दिया।

जोस यूसुफ: क्षमा करें … ये उसकी गलती नहीं है। आजकल भारतीय इसी तरह बात करते हैं… केवल भक्ति और ना कोई तर्क।

राकेश चतुर्वेदी: पहले हर कोई आजतक पर भरोसा करता था है, लेकिन अब चैनल देख कर बदलना पसंद करता  है।

अजय सिंघल: वो आजतक में  एक ऐसी है जो निष्पक्ष है,यह जुबान का फिसलना हो सकता है।

मन्ना बरभुया: अंजना ओम मोदी .. बुरा नहीं वास्तव में

सोम्याकान्ता मिश्रा: इसे कहा दाता है मोदी मैनिया… हा हा हा …

Courtesy: Janta Ka Reporter
 

The post मोदी भक्ति: आज तक की एंकर अंजना ओम कश्यप ने अपना पूरा नाम बोला ‘अंजना ओम मोदी’, वीडियो वायरल appeared first on SabrangIndia.