The Authority found that while both sides of the issue were presented in the broadcast — including denials by Madrasa authorities and a detailed interview with NCPCR Chairperson Priyank Kanoongo — the anchor failed to exercise necessary caution, particularly in a situation involving conflicting claims and sensitive subject matter. The Authority issued important observations and guidance, emphasising the need for responsible anchoring, verification of claims, and avoidance of presumptive or potentially polarizing narratives in future broadcasts.

Background of the complaint

On August 19, 2024, Times Now Navbharat aired two related segments in its flagship evening programme:

Programme 1: “Sankalp Rashtra Nirman Ka: कराची का लिटरेचर..भारत के मदरसों में क्या कर रहा ? | Hindi News”

Programme 2: “Rashtravad: भारत का मदरसा…पाकिस्तान का सिलेबस? | Priyank Kanoongo | Bihar Madarsa | Hindi News”

Both the shows are based on the statement made by Chairperson of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, Priyank Kanoongo, who had alleged that the government-funded madrassas in Bihar are teaching from so-called “Radical-curriculum” and using “Pakistan-Published books”.

Based on the above statement, both shows propagated allegedly harmful ideas through a distorted portrayal of madrasa education, emphasizing sensationalism over balanced reporting. The “Sankalp Rashtra Nirman Ka” show and the “Rashtravad” debate show both relied heavily on inflammatory language and selective framing, painting madrassas as centres of radicalism and anti-national sentiment. The use of provocative questions and visual imagery aimed to generate fear and suspicion among viewers.

In view of the same, CJP filed a complaint with the NBDSA on September 26, 2024, alleging that the programs:

• Used provocative, communal, and stigmatising language.
• Presented unverified and one-sided narratives.
• Violated the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards and Specific Guidelines Covering Reportage, especially clauses relating to accuracy, neutrality, communal harmony, and the prohibition on fear-mongering.

Details of the complaint may be read here.

CJP’s contentions

CJP’s detailed submissions alleged that:

• The programs vilified Madrasas as a whole, implying they were inherently suspicious or linked to terrorism.
• The headlines and taglines like “Jihadi Sanskriti” are not only highly inflammatory, but also lacked any evidentiary basis.
• The selective use of visuals, interviews, and graphics sensationalised the topic and created an atmosphere of fear and distrust toward the Muslim community.
• The broadcaster failed to present the views of those running Madrasas, denying them a fair opportunity to respond, which violated the principle of balanced reportage.

CJP argued that such content endangered social harmony, contributed to religious polarization, and had a real-world impact, particularly on the already marginalized Muslim minority in Bihar and across the country.

Broadcaster’s response

Times Now Navbharat submitted that:

• The programming was based on ground-level reporting, including testimonies of teachers and students.
• The subject was of legitimate public interest, especially in light of reported links between radicalisation and certain educational institutions.
• The channel did not target any religion or community, and the intention was not to generalize all Madrasas but to expose certain problematic instances.

The broadcaster also claimed that the programs adhered to the tenets of free speech and journalistic inquiry, and that no direct allegations were made without basis.

NBDSA’s findings and reasoning

After considering the submissions of both parties and reviewing the footage, the NBDSA noted that the broadcaster had included views from both the NCPCR Chairperson and the Bihar Madrasa authorities-

• Priyank Kanoongo was given space to express his concerns regarding the textbook “Talimul Islam”.
• Abdul Salam Ansari, Deputy Director of the Bihar State Madrasa Board, as well as a teacher and students at a Madrasa in Patna, were interviewed and categorically denied that the textbook was part of their curriculum.

NBDSA held that had the broadcast been confined to these interviews and objective presentation, no objection could have been sustained, as the principles of impartiality, neutrality, and objectivity were adhered to in that part.

However, the issue arose with the conduct and framing by the anchor, who, in NBDSA’s view, failed to exercise due caution:

• Despite conflicting claims between NCPCR and the Bihar Madrasa authorities, the anchor proceeded on the presumption that Kanoongo’s version was correct, thereby shaping the program around that assumption.
• The NBDSA stressed that in the presence of such a serious allegation, especially involving potential hate teaching in religious institutions, the anchor had a duty to verify the claims further or maintain a neutral stance.

The Authority pointed out that Mr. Abdul Salam Ansari, like Mr. Kanoongo, is a responsible public authority, and the lack of further verification before drawing conclusions was inappropriate.

“However, the objection is with the questions raised by the anchors during the broadcasts. No doubt, Mr. Fri.yank Kanoongo had claimed that the contents of a certain textbook “Talimul Islam” was taught in Madrasas in Bihar. Again, no doubt, he is a responsible person being the Chairman, CPCR. At the same time, the anchor should have also kept in mind that the Deputy Director, Bihar State Madrasa Board as well as the teacher and students interviewed had denounced that the textbook was indeed being taught and had refused to comment on the same without receiving any information/ representation in this regard. In such a scenario, the anchor should have been little careful before proceeding with the presumption that all this was in fact happening. Even the Deputy Director, Bihar State Madrasa Board is also a responsible person and in view of conflicting claims, there should have been some verification by the anchor before accepting the version of one person and adopting a narrative in the programme on that premise,” the NBDSA observed in its order.

The Authority also made a broader constitutional observation, stating that if any educational institution teaches hatred or demeans other religions, such teaching would be clearly contrary to constitutional ethos and must be denounced. However, it emphasized that before such a conclusion is broadcast publicly, it must be verified with due diligence.

“It is reemphasized that in this secular country governed by the Constitution of India, such kind of teachings have to be denounced. However, it is equally important to verify that in fact there were teachings in certain Madrasas in Bihar of that nature.”

“In view of the aforesaid, NBDSA is of the opinion that the anchor should be more cautious in broadcasting such programmes which have, otherwise, tendency to create the feeling of hatred towards a particular community and broadcasting of these programmes should not be without proper verifications of the contents.”

Final decision

The NBDSA decided to close the complaint but concluded with a strong advisory observation:

• Anchors must be more cautious while hosting and framing programs that deal with religious or communal issues, especially where claims remain unverified or contested.
• Broadcasters should avoid presumptive narratives that could create feelings of hatred towards any community.

.The NBDSA’s order walks a nuanced line — while not indicting the broadcaster for the program as a whole, it takes issue with editorial judgment exercised during the broadcast, particularly by the anchor. It reaffirms the role of media in upholding constitutional values and avoiding communal polarization, especially in a context where both official and institutional versions of events were in direct conflict.

The decision sends a message that in a pluralist democracy like India, the journalistic duty to verify and maintain neutrality is not just ethical—it is constitutional.

The complete order may be read below.

Related:

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

CJP’s Landmark Victory Against Hate in Media | Times Now Navbharat Pulled Up by NBDSA

Championing Justice: CJP’s Guide to Filing NBDSA Complaints

NBDSA orders mainstream news channels to remove shows, fines imposed

The post NBDSA cautions Times Now Navbharat against presumptive anchoring in sensitive religious coverage in broadcast concerning “Madrasas Teachings” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In an era where the click often holds more sway than the content, the gatekeepers of Indian broadcast news have issued a stark warning. The signposts must match the destination. The News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) delivered a sharp rebuke on June 9, 2025, calling out news channels for a pervasive and troubling trend of using misleading tickers and thumbnails that twist the reality of their own reports. This move signals a potential turning point in holding media outlets accountable for the digital bait they use to lure viewers.

At the heart of this decision was a specific broadcast by Times Now Navbharat, which the NBDSA, led by Chairperson Justice (retd.) A.K. Sikri, found to be in clear violation. The panel observed that the pursuit of sensationalism often leads to a distorted version of the actual narrative, and the time for correction is now.

The controversial Shimla broadcast

The issue stemmed from a complaint filed by Indrajeet Ghorpade regarding a September 6, 2024, report by Times Now Navbharat. The broadcast, which focused on the Sanjauli mosque in Shimla, was promoted with incendiary thumbnails. One read, “अवैध मस्जिद पर महिलओं ने मुसलमानों पर खुलकर सब बता दिया!” (Women openly tell everything about the illegal mosque), while another featured visuals of women with provocative, incomplete speech bubbles like “मुसलमान लड़के हमे….” (Muslim boys us…) and “जुम्मे के दिन तो…” (On Fridays…).

According to complaint against the channel, the reporter’s line of questioning to four local women was pointed, “Has the number of Muslims visiting the mosque increased?”, “What is the change in the atmosphere with the rise in the population of Muslim persons in Shimla?”, and the direct “Kya Dar Ka Mahaul hai?” (Is there an atmosphere of fear?).

Yet, according to the complaint, none of the women interviewed recounted any personal negative experiences with the Muslim community or visitors to the mosque.

Leading questions, loaded thumbnails

The complainant, Mr. Ghorpade, argued that the reporter’s leading questions were designed to elicit a particular response, creating a narrative of fear. This effect, he contended, was dangerously amplified by the malicious thumbnails. He pointed out the absurdity of using fragmented and suggestive speech bubbles like “musalman ladke hume…” when the women interviewed never made such statements or flagged any safety issues. The clear insinuation, he argued, was designed to ignite communal tension.

A deluge of videos

While highlighting the channel’s relentless focus on the issue, the complainant submitted that Times Now Navbharat had uploaded nearly 150 videos on the Shimla Mosque within a 48-hour period. Thumbnails for these videos continued the provocative theme, with one stating, “Avaidh Masjid ko lekar Shimla ke Hinduon ne Musalmano par kya kaha” (What Shimla’s Hindus said about the illegal mosque), accompanied by an image of a woman with a speech bubble suggesting she said “yaha se hathaya jaye” (it should be removed from here). The complainant asserted that this pattern demonstrated a clear and ill-intentioned agenda.

The channel’s defence

In its submission, Times Now Navbharat positioned the broadcast as a report on civic issues like overcrowding and women’s safety in Shimla, denying that it singled out any community. The channel maintained that the four women interviewed were independent-minded adults whose responses were not influenced. It argued that their concerns about verifying newcomers were general and not aimed at any specific group.

The broadcaster urged the NBDSA to view the program in its entirety, set against the backdrop of an allegedly illegal multi-story construction at the mosque. They contended that discussing the impact on the local atmosphere was legitimate journalism. Invoking the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), the channel defended its editorial discretion in how it presented the story, arguing that isolating certain elements from their context was unfair. When pressed on the misleading thumbnails, the channel stated that a full statement cannot be carried in a thumbnail and no motive should be attributed to it.

NBDSA’s verdict: a clear misrepresentation

The NBDSA panel was not persuaded. It observed that the thumbnail text was glaringly inconsistent with the actual statements made by the women in the broadcast. The authority concluded that the text, particularly phrases like “Musalman ladke hume… Jumeh ke din toh…”, gave the false and damaging impression that Muslim men were harassing women. The NBDSA deemed this not only misleading but also detrimental to communal harmony, constituting a clear violation of its guidelines.

NBDSA’s advisory to all broadcasters

Finding that the thumbnails failed to project a correct version of the interviews, the NBDSA issued a decisive advisory to all broadcasters. It emphasised that tickers and thumbnails are not exempt from journalistic ethics and must faithfully conform to the actual content of the report.

The authority directed Times Now Navbharat to immediately edit or remove the offending thumbnails from the video of the broadcast, wherever it may exist online, and confirm its compliance in writing within seven days. With this order, the NBDSA closed the complaint, but opened a new chapter in the fight for digital news integrity.

The NBDSA order dated 09.06.2025 can be read here:

CJP: In solidarity with those resisting hate

This NBDSA ruling is more than a penalty for one channel; it’s a victory in the wider fight against digital misinformation; a battle being fiercely waged by citizen-led groups. At the forefront is Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), an organisation that has moved beyond merely complaining to building a network of empowered citizens capable of fighting back themselves.

CJP’s research, detailed in reports like “The Cost of Clicks,” has dissected how channels, facing scrutiny for overt hate, have pivoted to a more insidious strategy. They now leverage sensational thumbnails as clever clickbait, transforming the quest for engagement into a perilous game of division and fear for profit. This psychological appeal exploits curiosity and apprehension to hook viewers.

The distinction between the themes of thumbnails and the actual content of video is stark, often serving merely as a trigger to provoke viewers into clicking on sensational videos. This tactic exploits ongoing, contentious issues that evoke curiosity and generate excitement among audiences. Thumbnails designed to capture attention ask questions like, “What will happen next?” This psychological appeal plays into a fundamental human tendency to seek out information about impending developments (and often, accompanied by a sense of apprehension, or doom).

CJP’s detailed research on “The Cost of Clicks: how thumbnails encourage misleading and hate news consumption” can be read here

Notably, the disturbing phenomenon was meticulously examined by the CJP Hate Watch team in its long-form analysis, “From government cheerleaders to agent provocateurs: the (mis) use of thumbnails on YouTube.” The analysis details how major Indian television channels, already positioned as mouthpieces for the powerful, are evolving their tactics. Faced with a credibility crisis and reined in by citizen-led complaints to the NBDSA, these channels have shifted their strategy.

Where overt hate in broadcasts once led to take-down orders, they now cleverly leverage misleading thumbnails as their primary weapon. This calculated use of provocative visuals and text is a persistent effort to barter on a politics of division, jeopardizing communal harmony while attempting to dodge direct regulatory scrutiny—a trend CJP has documented through numerous NBDSA orders obtained against these channels between 2022 and 2024.

Related

The Cost of Clicks: how thumbnails encourage misleading and hate news consumption

From government cheerleaders to agent provocateurs: the (mis) use of thumbnails on YouTube

From ‘Ab Hoga Khel’ to ‘Kuch Bada Hone Wala Hai’: the trap set by thumbnails

The post NBDSA issued advisory to all broadcasters, tickers and thumbnail should conform to the actual of the discussions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Taking this citizens’ monitoring several steps further, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has filed complaints against six mainstream Indian news channels, Aaj Tak, ABP News, Times Now Navbharat, NDTV, India TV, and News18 this week. The complaints detail three key instances of misinformation. Five channels – Aaj Tak, ABP News, Times Now Navbharat, NDTV, and India TV – broadcasted a four-year-old video of Israel’s Iron Dome, falsely presenting it as recent footage of Indian air defence systems in Jaisalmer. These channels claimed the footage showed India thwarting Pakistani aerial threats.

Separately, News18 falsely identified Maulana Qari Mohammad Iqbal, an Indian religious scholar and educator, as a Pakistani terrorist killed in an Indian airstrike. News18’s report, titled “India’s air strike Pakistan: Operation Sindoor,” claimed Iqbal was a top Lashkar-e-Taiba commander. CJP’s complaint iterated that Iqbal was not a terrorist, claims that the unfortunate teacher’s family had stated on social media and even the Poonch police had clarified: Maulana Iqbal had died in cross-border shelling while adding relevant evidence in its complaint against the channels for its inaccurate broadcast.

Additionally, Aaj Tak broadcasted old footage of Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, falsely claiming it showed Indian attacks on Pakistan during “Operation Sindoor”. CJP’s complaints highlight serious ethical breaches, including the use of misleading visuals, sensationalist commentary, and theatrical framing to manipulate public perception. CJP is demanding on-air corrections, public apologies, and the removal of the misleading content.

Fake War Footage: Old Israeli defence videos masqueraded as airstrikes in Jaisalmer

During a critical moment of heightened tensions between India and Pakistan in May 2025, multiple mainstream Indian news channels — including Aaj Tak, ABP News, Times Now Navbharat, NDTV, and India TV — broadcasted a four-year-old video showing Israel’s Iron Dome air defence system. These visuals were falsely presented as recent, exclusive footage of Indian air defence systems thwarting Pakistani aerial threats in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

News channels misrepresent outdated foreign footage as breaking war coverage

Aaj Tak

On May 14, CJP filed a complaint with Aaj Tak regarding a misrepresented broadcast, as on May 9, Aaj Tak aired a show hosted by senior anchor Anjana Om Kashyap under the sensational title, “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].” Kashyap claimed the visuals depicted a Pakistani drone attack being repelled in Jaisalmer. The same footage was shown by anchor Shweta Singh, again framed as evidence of India’s successful defence.

Archived combat footage passed off as real-time strikes during ‘Operation Sindoor’: Aaj Tak uses Israeli airstrike footage to claim Indian attacks on Pakistan

Similarly, as reports of India’s military strikes under “Operation Sindoor” on May 7, 2025, began to surface, Aaj Tak broadcast visuals that allegedly showed seven Indian missiles being launched, claiming they were live visuals from Bahawalpur, Pakistan — a hub of terrorist activity. The footage was shared both on air and on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), captioned “ऑपरेशन सिंदूर | ऐसे ध्वस्त हुआ जैश का आतंकी अड्डा [Operation Sindoor | How the Jaish Terrorist Base Was Destroyed].”

ऑपरेशन सिंदूर | ऐसे ध्वस्त हुआ जैश का आतंकी अड्डा #OperationSindoor #Pakistan #IndianArmy #IndianAirforce #IndiaStrikesTerroristan #PahalgamTerrorAttack | @anjanaomkashyap pic.twitter.com/DxwLnhmDUr

— AajTak (@aajtak) May 7, 2025

However, reverse image searches revealed that these visuals were not recent, nor were they connected to any Indian military action. Instead, they were taken from a report by Sputnik Armenia published on October 13, 2023, depicting Israeli airstrikes in Gaza. The original footage was also corroborated by the Israeli Air Force’s own records and shared on their official Facebook page.

Fact-checkers debunk false Media claims

Further confirmation came from multiple sources, including Al Mayadeen and BBC journalist Shayan Sardarizadeh, CJP’s complaint described this as not merely an error but a calculated attempt to dramatise the news cycle.  The same video resurfaced a few days later and was used by the media outlet Al Mayadeen in their video report on bombings in Gaza on October 23, 2023.

In doing so, the channel undermined public trust, misinformed citizens about the reality of ongoing military operations, and potentially destabilised diplomatic efforts through the spread of inflammatory, inaccurate content.

CJP in its complaint to Aaj Tak, also mentioned other social media accounts had also shared the identical video on October 13, 2023. Links to these X posts are available:

Heavy Israeli airstrikes continued in the Gaza Strip tonight. pic.twitter.com/nVG7x0qVv1

— Status-6 (Military & Conflict News) (BlueSky too) (@Archer83Able) October 12, 2023

Israel is currently carrying out a MASSIVE airstrike on Gaza. pic.twitter.com/yqi0zBzfue

— Censored Men (@CensoredMen) October 12, 2023

#IsraelPalestineConflict Israel Forces attack Gaza.https://t.co/kt7X1rLBKP #Israel #IsraelFightsBack #Gaza #GazaUnderAttack #Hamas_is_ISIS #Hamas #HamasMassacre #HamasTerrorism #HamasISIS #Palestine #PalestineUnderAttack #palastine #WestBank pic.twitter.com/6dMMGEXTxA

— People’s Eye (@eye_peoples) October 13, 2023

Gaza |

Intense bombings are now striking Gaza, causing significant tremors. In the past two hours alone, Israeli warplanes have claimed the lives of 40 Palestinians. pic.twitter.com/8PPTRry05k

— Younis Tirawi | يونس (@ytirawi) October 12, 2023

These broadcasts, as outlined in the CJP’s complaint to above channels, reflect systemic problems in how certain mainstream media outlets handle news during national crises. From falsifying battlefield footage to wrongfully branding civilians as terrorists, and recycling old foreign war clips as current Indian military action, the channels prioritised sensationalism over accuracy.

The complaint may be read here:

ABP News

On May 15, 2025, ABP News also faced CJP’s complaint with its May 8, 2025 bulletin titled “India Pakistan War Update: श्रीनगर और लुधियाना में ब्लैक आउट.” Through the broadcast, Anchor Chitra Tripathi and a field reporter stated unequivocally that a Pakistani drone strike had just been neutralised in Jaisalmer using Indian defence systems. ABP presented them with no disclaimers, context, or source attribution.

The channel presented the visuals, which bore a striking resemblance to Israel’s Iron Dome air defence system in action, as exclusive footage originating from Jaisalmer and depicting events that had occurred “a short while ago.” This purported visual evidence was displayed throughout a substantial portion of the broadcast, from the 00:01 to the 05:29 timestamp. Adding to the gravity of the claim, the anchor, Chitra Tripathi, explicitly stated that a “drone attack happened in Jaisalmer.”

Furthermore, the reporting included a correspondent who affirmed that “the Indian missiles/counter drone system destroyed the drone attack” [Time Stamp: 02:30 – 03:30]. By presenting unverified and, as later revealed, outdated footage as a real-time depiction of a critical security event in a sensitive border region, ABP News engaged in a serious act of misrepresentation and disseminated potentially inflammatory misinformation to its viewers. This broadcast had the potential to significantly shape public perception during a period of heightened national anxiety, CJP’s complaint mentioned

CJP mentioned in its complaint that “Despite this, ABP News aired the video as breaking and exclusive news footage, implicitly suggesting to viewers that Indian air defence forces had successfully repelled an actual Pakistani air attack. No disclaimers, source identification, or verification notes were presented either during or after the broadcast. The footage was shared with a tone of real-time urgency, further misleading the public into believing that an active military escalation was underway.”

The complaint may be read here:

Times Now Navbharat

On May 15, CJP filed a complaint with Times Now Navbharat for its May 9 broadcast, titled “#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].” CJP mentioned that the broadcast of India TV amplified similar claims, airing the same misleading visuals on May 9 under the tag “#BharatPAKWarBREAKING.” The channel claimed Pakistani strikes had been intercepted in Jaisalmer, echoing the others’ false narratives.

The complaint may be read here:

NDTV

On May 15, CJP filed a complaint with NDTV for its May 8 broadcast nearly identical visuals under the headline “India-Pakistan Tension: पाकिस्तान के खिलाफ भारत का जवाबी हमला शुरू.” Again, the footage was presented without context, implying a real-time military development.

The complaint may be read here:

India TV

On May 16, CJP filed a complaint with India TV over the broadcast of inaccurate and misleading visuals. CJP finds that the channel on May 9 falsely claimed that Pakistani drones were shot down in Ramgarh, Jaisalmer. while the channel did not explicitly state that the video footage was from Ramgarh, Jaisalmer, it was presented alongside a report alleging that Pakistani drones had been intercepted in the area— without any disclaimer or clarification.

This created a misleading impression that the visuals were authentic, recent, and directly related to the reported incident, particularly within the context of escalating India-Pakistan tensions. The lack of any on-screen disclaimer or contextual clarification further supported this illusion, making it appear as though viewers were witnessing real-time footage of Indian forces responding to a Pakistani attack.

Such tactics exploit the emotive power of visuals for sensational effect, prioritising ratings over responsibility. In a volatile geopolitical climate, this kind of reporting is not only ethically indefensible but socially dangerous. It undermines public trust in the media, distorts the reality of conflict, and risks escalating tensions based on manufactured impressions.

The complaint may be read here:

CJP flags intentional misinformation and potential public harm and panic

In its complaints to the channels, CJP detailed how the broadcasts misinformed and misled viewers by using dramatic, outdated footage to fabricate a false narrative of live military engagement. CJP asserted that this went beyond mere editorial oversight, constituting a serious ethical breach. The combination of misleading visuals, sensationalist commentary, and theatrical framing served to manipulate public perception and exploit viewers’ emotions amid a period of real geopolitical tension.

Original video was uploaded to YouTube channel named @NSFchannel on May 11, 2021

CJP in its complaint against six mainstream news channels, cited an investigation by independent fact-checking organisation Alt News, titled “Aaj Tak, NDTV, Times Now, News18 & others ran 4-yr-old video as aerial fight over Jaisalmer.“ The fact-check revealed that the video aired by these channels as supposed footage of India’s air defence system intercepting Pakistani aerial threats was originally uploaded to YouTube on May 11, 2021, by a channel named NSF Channel.

The original caption clearly identified the visuals as showing Israel’s Iron Dome in action. Despite this information being publicly available for years, the news channels misleadingly presented the clip during heightened India-Pakistan tensions in May 2025, risking public panic, misinformation, and further hostility.

While Alt News could not independently confirm that the footage showed the Iron Dome specifically, it conclusively established that the video was at least four years old and entirely unrelated to the 2025 conflict, making its use by the news channels a serious breach of journalistic integrity.

Misidentifying an Indian educator as a Pakistani terrorist: a dangerous act of defamation: News18 insensitively labels civilian death as terror elimination

On May 14 (2025), CJP also sent a formal complaint to News 18, as on May 7, 2025, News18 aired a segment titled “India’s air strike Pakistan: Operation Sindoor में मारा गया आतंकी Mohammad Iqbal |India Pak War,” claiming that a top Lashkar-e-Taiba commander named Mohammad Iqbal had been killed in an Indian airstrike. This “most-wanted terrorist,” the report alleged, had been neutralised during “Operation Sindoor.”

Link for the contentious programme- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swmMklh41No

CJP’s submission in its complaint reiterated that in reality, Maulana Qari Mohammad Iqbal was not a terrorist but a religious scholar and educator from Poonch, Jammu & Kashmir. He taught at Jamia Zia-ul-Uloom and had no ties to any militant organisation. He tragically lost his life in cross-border shelling — not during an anti-terror operation — contrary to what several media outlets falsely reported.

According to the CJP complaint, independent fact-checks and official confirmations, including from the district police, have unequivocally established that he had no links to militancy. Media platforms misappropriated his identity, even using an image originally posted in a condolence message by Jamia’s deputy administrator, Mr. Sayeed Ahmed Habib. His grieving family, including brother-in-law Ishaq Khayan and brother Qari Mohammad Farookh, have condemned the coverage as defamatory and deeply distressing.

In its complaints, CJP cited the Alt News fact-check published on May 10, 2025, titled “His name was Qari Mohammad Iqbal. He was not a terrorist.” In response to the misinformation, CJP has added the case to its complaint against the circulation of fake news and communal profiling by certain media houses.

Facts vs Fabrication: Media’s reckless misreporting exposed

CJP’s complaint to channels included findings from various independent fact-checkers and official confirmations that debunked News18’s claim. Local police authorities, his family, and his colleagues confirmed that Qari Iqbal was not involved in any unlawful activities. The image used by the channel was originally part of a condolence message from a colleague, Sayeed Ahmed Habib.

In an official statement, Jamia Zia Ul Uloom, the institution where Iqbal worked, called the portrayal “shameful” and “deeply regrettable.” They demanded a public apology from the channels that misreported the story and warned of legal action if no corrective steps were taken.

Family demands strict action against those spreading misinformation

Qari Mohammad Iqbal’s family has demanded strict action against those spreading misinformation.

“We were already in mourning, and now this false narrative has added to our pain. Sections of the ‘Godi media’ are falsely labeling him as a Pakistani terrorist, which is absolutely baseless. We strongly condemn this defamation and appeal to the District Collector (DC Saab) to take immediate and appropriate action,” the family stated.

Qari Iqbal Mohammad’s family demands action against ‘Godi media’ for falsely labelling him a Pakistani terrorist.

They claimed that he was killed in Indian airstrikes in Pakistan.

Fact: He was killed in Pakistani shelling in Poonch. pic.twitter.com/cXpD2RYXaQ

— Alishan Jafri (@alishan_jafri) May 8, 2025

Maulana Mohd Iqbal had no terror links: district Poonch police

In response to misinformation circulating on social media and certain digital platforms, Poonch Police, through its official X handle, issued a clear and firm statement addressing the matter.

“Poonch Police refutes fake news circulating about the death of Maulana Mohd Iqbal in cross-border shelling. He had no terror links. Misreporting causes panic and legal action will follow against those spreading misinformation,” the post read.

Poonch Police refutes fake news circulating about the death of Maulana Mohd Iqbal in cross-border shelling. He had no terror links. Misreporting causes panic and Legal action will follow against those spreading misinformation. @JmuKmrPolice @ZPHQJammu @digrprange

— DISTRICT POLICE POONCH (@Poonch_Police) May 8, 2025

The clarification comes amid a surge in unverified reports alleging that Maulana Mohd Iqbal, a respected local religious figure, was killed in cross-border shelling and had affiliations with terror groups — both claims now officially denied.

The incident reveals a disturbing tendency in segments of the news channels, the urge to capitalise on conflict by rushing to label civilians as enemies. This not only violates journalistic ethics but inflicts real harm on grieving families and distorts the facts on the ground, CJP strongly argued in its complaints

Violations of NBDSA Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards

Violation of Fundamental Principles

The complaints submitted by CJP highlights multiple violations of the NBDSA’s Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards by Aaj Tak, ABP News, NDTV, India TV, Times Now Navbharat, and News18. Citing Section 1 – Fundamental Principles of the Code, the complaints underscore that professional electronic journalists are obligated to act as trustees of public interest, and to “seek the truth and report it fairly with integrity and independence.” This obligation includes ensuring the dissemination of verified and accurate information, enabling the public to form their own opinions based on facts, and being accountable to the citizenry by not misleading them, especially during sensitive national moments.

However, it was found that in the broadcasts aired by the aforementioned channels, a video of unverified origin—purportedly showing a Pakistani air attack foiled in Jaisalmer—was broadcast without authentication. In doing so, the channels compromised accuracy by failing to verify the origin or authenticity of the footage prior to airing, thereby misleading audiences and violating the ethical foundations of journalism meant to serve the public interest.

The complaints noted that this constituted a betrayal of the media’s role as a platform for truthful and balanced information, and described it as a grave dereliction of professional responsibility, particularly during a conflict scenario where misinformation can easily shape public perception, trigger mass fear, or escalate geopolitical tensions.

Breach of Principles of Self-Regulation and National Security

Further, under Section 2 – Principles of Self-Regulation, it was found that the broadcasters violated norms concerning impartiality, objectivity, and neutrality. The complaints emphasised that while 24-hour news channels are expected to operate with speed, accuracy and balance must take precedence. In the May 9, 2025 broadcast, the channels reportedly prioritised sensationalism over verified information. The use of inaccurate and outdated footage as alleged real-time visuals demonstrated a reckless disregard for factual accuracy and ethical broadcasting standards. No clarifications or corrective statements were issued, thereby compounding the breach of accountability.

Additionally, the complaint raised concerns under the guidelines on reporting crime and violence, stating that the channels aired visuals originally depicting Israeli military operations while falsely presenting them as Indian actions.

This misrepresentation glorified violent retaliation and military aggression, and the use of graphic imagery combined with a triumphant tone amounted to glamorisation of cross-border violence, potentially inciting emotional and nationalistic fervour among viewers. The complaints also stated that the portrayal of a foreign missile defence system as an Indian military success misled the public and desensitised audiences to the real dangers of armed conflict by falsely boosting perceptions of India’s defence capabilities.

Moreover, CJP’s complaints cited violations related to national security, noting that the dissemination of false information during an already volatile military situation between India and Pakistan risked endangering operational confidentiality and public safety. By misreporting the scale and location of military operations and falsely broadcasting visuals of active air defence systems, the channels undermined diplomatic efforts and national security interests.

CJP concluded that such actions had the potential to mislead international observers, escalate bilateral tensions, and severely compromise journalistic responsibility in moments of national significance.

Violation of government advisories

This coverage is also in direct violation of multiple advisories issued by government authorities

including the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting:

“Advisory on live/real-time coverage of defence operations (MIB Advisory dated April 25, 2025): All media channels, digital platforms and individuals are advised to refrain from live coverage or real-time reporting of defence operations and movement of security forces. Disclosure of such sensitive or source-based information may jeopardise operational effectiveness.”

The news channels, in their rush to report “military actions,” irresponsibly broadcasted speculative and unverified visuals during prime-time programming, falsely portraying old footage from a different conflict zone as evidence of India’s military strikes over Pakistan’s drone. This not only misled the public but also potentially compromised operational and national security.

Advisory to counter disinformation during sensitive times

CJP stated that, through social media platforms, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had urged citizens to, in sensitive times like these, be wary of disinformation being spread on social media. The advisory emphasised verifying any piece of news, image, or video before sharing or forwarding.

The broadcast in question blatantly disregarded this advisory by airing unverified and repurposed footage — originally the Iron Dome from 2021 — and falsely presenting as authentic visuals from an ongoing India-Pakistan conflict. This constitutes a serious breach of ethical responsibility, especially during heightened national tension.

In sensitive times like these, it is necessary to be wary of disinformation being spread on social media.

Always verify any piece of news, image, or video before you forward.

If you come across suspicious or misleading content, report it to @PIBFactCheck #FactCheck… pic.twitter.com/UBNCdvy5gB

— Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (@MIB_India) May 9, 2025

CJP highlights potential consequences of irresponsible coverage

The recent use of misleading and outdated footage by major news channels such as AAJ Tak, India TV, Times Now Navbharat, NDTV, ABP News, and News18 constitutes a serious violation of journalistic ethics and regulatory standards. These channels have relied on three key forms of misinformation: the airing of old Israeli defence videos passed off as Indian airstrikes, the wrongful identification of an Indian educator as a Pakistani terrorist, and the misrepresentation of archived combat footage as real-time military operations during ‘Operation Sindoor’. These missteps form the basis of six core complaints:

1.  Fake War Footage: The channels aired outdated Israeli airstrike and iron dome videos, misidentifying them as Indian airstrikes in Jaisalmer, misleading the public during a time of heightened tensions between India and Pakistan.
2.  Dangerous Defamation: An Indian educator was falsely labelled as a Pakistani terrorist, a gross act of defamation that puts innocent lives at risk.
3.  Erroneous Terrorism Reporting: News 18 wrongly portrayed civilian deaths as the elimination of terrorists, perpetuating dangerous narratives and misinformation.

This type of misreporting is deeply concerning, as it not only escalates public panic but also influences national sentiment with falsehoods, contributing to a climate of fear and hostility. Senior journalists, who are typically trusted by the public for accurate reporting, further amplify the damage by failing to properly verify the footage. Basic checks, such as reverse image searches, could have easily identified the true origins of the material, but these were overlooked.

CJP asserted that, the consequences of such reckless coverage are severe. These actions risk destabilising regional diplomatic relations, undermine public trust in the media, and trivialise the suffering caused by real global conflicts. Given the responsibility of the media to inform the public with accuracy and fairness, especially during sensitive geopolitical moments, these channels have failed to uphold their duty, deepening scepticism toward legitimate news and paving the way for further disinformation. The channels must act promptly to remove these videos and issue a public apology, ensuring that only verified, factual content is broadcast during national crises.

CJP urged immediate action from all channels

In light of the serious violations outlined, CJP demands immediate corrective and restorative actions from the six channels involved — AAJ Tak, India TV, Times Now Navbharat, NDTV, ABP News, and News18:

• Corrigendum and on-air correction: Acknowledge and correct the false claims aired on the channels, through on-air corrections with equal prominence and visibility as the original segments. we must be scheduled to attract maximum viewer attention, and not relegated to off-peak timeslots.
• Public apology to viewers and affected communities: A formal, unconditional apology must be issued by the channels, both on-air and on all digital platforms, for the dissemination of false and misleading visuals and the resultant panic and misinformation caused.
• Immediate removal of the broadcast videos and related content from the channels must be permanently removed from all platforms, including YouTube and X, to prevent continued circulation of this misinformation

Over News18’s misreporting, CJP insists on a formal and unconditional apology. This apology must be prominently broadcast on-air and across all digital platforms, directly addressing the profound pain and defamation inflicted upon the family and the community of Poonch, CJP asked

Related:

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

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

Holding power to account: CJP’s efforts to combat hate and polarisation

The post Apology and Accountability: CJP files complaint with six news channels for airing misleading war clips, false terror claims in ‘Operation Sindoor’ coverage appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In both cases, the NBDSA highlighted the anchors’ partisan conduct, accusing them of steering debates towards religious bias, amplifying communal tensions, and failing to moderate inflammatory statements by panellists. The authority found that these broadcasts violated the Code of Ethics and Specific Guidelines for Anchors, deeming their removal essential to mitigate the harmful impact of their content. These orders not only hold anchors accountable for their role in perpetuating polarising narratives but also emphasise the critical need for ethical and responsible journalism.

Order on complaint to Times Now Navbharat for giving Israel-Hamas conflict a communal colour during debates

Background of the complaint

On October 23, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a complaint with Times Now Navbharat regarding two debate segments aired on October 16, 2023. The debates, titled “Modi के खिलाफ… क्यों खडे ‘हमास’ के साथ?” and “Rashtravad: हिंदुस्तान में ‘Hamas Think tank’ कौन बना रहा है?”, addressed the Israel-Hamas conflict but framed the issue in a communal and polarising manner. The debates portrayed Indian Muslims, opposition leaders, and leftist student organisations supporting Palestine as sympathisers of Hamas due to their “religious connection”. CJP highlighted how such broadcasts stigmatised Muslims and painted the Palestinian cause as a communal issue rather than one about life, liberty, and freedom from occupation.

The complaint noted that the anchors, Rakesh Pandey and Naina Yadav, adopted a partisan approach, posing biased and leading questions that portrayed the Muslim community and its leaders in a negative light. Pandey’s show suggested that Indian Muslims might support terrorism due to shared religious ties, while Yadav’s debate questioned whether opposition leaders were inciting support for Hamas in India. CJP argued that this rhetoric violated the NBDSA’s guidelines for neutrality and responsible reporting, contributing to a polarising environment and exacerbating communal tensions in India. Upon no satisfactory response from the broadcaster, the complaint was then escalated to the NBDSA on November 10, 2023.

Submissions by the complainants

1. Communal bias: The debates portrayed Indian Muslims supporting Palestine as being aligned with Hamas, despite no evidence to suggest such alignment.
2. Accusatory tone: Anchors framed polarising questions, such as “Will there be support for terrorism owing to the religious connection shared?” and accused opposition leaders of creating a “Hamas think tank” in India.
3. Unequal treatment: Panellists from opposition parties and Muslim backgrounds were treated with hostility, while ruling party representatives were given a platform to make communal diatribes unchallenged.
4. Misrepresentation: Clips of protests and statements supporting Palestine were selectively used to create suspicion, ignoring India’s official stance supporting a two-state solution.

The complainants cited Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India to emphasise the duties of anchors in conducting fair and impartial debates.

Submissions by the broadcaster

1. Support for India’s stance: The broadcaster argued that the debates aligned with India’s position on the Israel-Palestine issue, which condemns Hamas while supporting a peaceful resolution.
2. No violation of guidelines: The broadcaster claimed that the debates merely questioned statements by political leaders perceived as opposing India’s stance.
3. Aggressive tone justified: It defended the tone as necessary for sensitive topics and asserted that annoyance or irritation caused to some viewers did not violate broadcasting norms.
4. Fair reporting: The debates, according to the broadcaster, provided viewers with accurate information and sought to uncover the motives behind statements made by certain political leaders.

Decision by the NBDSA

After reviewing the footage, arguments, and submissions, the NBDSA noted that while criticism of Hamas falls under freedom of expression, the impugned broadcasts went beyond this remit and violated the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards.

Key findings in the order:

1. Communal colour: The NBDSA observed that the debates gave a communal tone to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Statements made by politicians in support of Palestine were conflated with support for Hamas. The debates also included biased and provocative questions such as, “Will there be support for terrorism owing to the religious connection shared?” and “Who is building the Hamas think tank in India?” These questions contributed to creating prejudice against a specific community.
2. Violation of anchor guidelines: The anchors failed to ensure impartiality. They permitted panellists, such as Mr. Shubham Tyagi, to make communal diatribes, and statements like comparing the Congress Party’s stance on Palestine to support for terrorist entities were not curtailed.
3. Targeting a community: The order noted that “the broadcaster exceeded the limits by targeting a particular community,” as evident in the framing of questions and the communal rhetoric during the debates.
4. Failure to provide balanced coverage: While the broadcaster claimed it was presenting India’s stance on the conflict, the NBDSA found that the anchors did not highlight India’s support for Palestine alongside its condemnation of Hamas, resulting in one-sided reporting.

Actions taken by the NBDSA:

The NBDSA concluded that the broadcaster’s failure to moderate the debates impartially and its communal portrayal of the Israel-Palestine conflict violated broadcasting standards. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring responsible journalism in sensitive discussions that can shape public opinion.

1. Warning issued: The NBDSA issued a formal warning to the broadcaster to adhere to the principles of neutrality and impartiality.
2. Removal of content: The broadcaster was directed to remove the videos of the said broadcasts from its website, YouTube, and any other digital platforms within seven days, confirming compliance in writing to the NBDSA.
3. Advisory for future broadcasts: The NBDSA advised the broadcaster to strictly follow the ‘Specific Guidelines for Anchors Conducting Programmes, Including Debates’ in future broadcasts, especially on sensitive topics.
4. Order dissemination: The NBDSA instructed the release of the order to the complainants, broadcaster, and media and its inclusion in its annual report.

The complete order may be read here.

Order on complaint to Zee News for communalising Budaun double murder case during debate

Background of the complaint

On March 27, 2024, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) lodged a detailed complaint with Zee Media Corporation Ltd. regarding a live debate segment aired on Zee News on March 20, 2024. The programme, titled “Debate on Budaun encounter LIVE: Encounter पर क्यों उठा रहे सवाल? Javed | Sajid | Breaking news,” focused on the Budaun double murder case, where a Muslim man was alleged to have murdered two Hindu children. The segment was broadcast repeatedly in a loop over 11 hours, amplifying its impact and raising concerns about a deliberate attempt to promote communal narratives. The actual panel discussion lasted over 35 minutes, during which the anchor and panellists were observed taking a problematic stance that injected a communal tone into an otherwise criminal case.

CJP’s complaint highlighted the derogatory and communal language used by the anchor, such as referring to the crime as a “Talibani style of murder,” which unnecessarily linked the incident to the religious identity of the accused. It argued that the show was structured to propagate a one-sided sectarian perspective, targeting the Muslim community as a whole. Muslim panellists were subjected to accusatory questioning and a polarised atmosphere, while Hindu participants were treated favourably. CJP also raised concerns about the psychological impact of repeatedly airing such biased content and demanded its removal from all platforms, along with a public apology from the broadcaster. Upon no satisfactory response from the broadcaster, the complaint was then escalated to the NBDSA on April 17, 2024.

Submissions by the complainant

1. Communalisation of the incident: The complainant stated that the debate focused on the religion of the victims and the accused, despite the police and the family confirming there was no religious motive.
2. Use of “Talibani-style murder”: The murder was repeatedly referred to as “Talibani-style” simply because the accused was Muslim and used a knife.
3. Inflammatory remarks by panellists: Communally inflammatory statements were made by panellists, including accusations about madrassas and claims that Muslims consider non-Muslims as “kaafirs.”
4. Discrimination against Muslim panellists: Muslim panellists were interrupted, accused of sympathising with the accused, and forced to apologise, while inflammatory statements by Hindu panellists went unchecked.
5. Diversion from extra-judicial killings: The anchor diverted attention from discussions on extra-judicial killings and accused Muslim panellists of sympathising with terrorists.
6. Anti-Muslim diatribe: Statements such as “Hindus should avoid Muslim barbers” were made during the debate, with the anchor justifying such remarks.
7. Violation of guidelines: The broadcast violated NBDSA guidelines by giving a communal colour to the incident and fostering religious hostility.

Submissions by the broadcaster

1. Purpose of the debate: The broadcaster argued the debate aimed to highlight the silence of politicians on the double murder.
2. Anchor’s neutrality: The anchor stated at the start of the debate that communal politics should not be part of the discussion.
3. Efforts to control panellists: The broadcaster claimed the anchor attempted to prevent panellists from digressing from the main topic.
4. Balance of representation: Religious leaders were invited to ensure a balanced discussion.
5. Use of “Talibani-style murder”: The term was used to reflect the brutality of the crime, not to reference religion.
6. Disclaimer: A disclaimer aired during the broadcast clarified that the views expressed by panellists were personal and not endorsed by the channel.

Decision of the NBDSA

After reviewing the footage, arguments, and submissions, the NBDSA noted that while the broadcaster had every right to question the silence of the politicians on such incidents which have the tendency to disturb the harmony in the society, the impugned broadcasts went beyond this remit and violated the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards. The order stated that the anchor Merely because the suspect person belonged to a particular community, it was no reason to label the same as ‘Talibani-styled’ murder.

Key findings in the order:

1. Right to broadcast: The broadcaster had the right to discuss the incident and question politicians’ silence but failed to limit the debate to this aspect.
2. Communalisation of the incident: Labelling the murder as “Talibani-style” based solely on the religion of the accused gave the incident an unwarranted communal colour.
3. Violation of guidelines: The broadcast violated the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards, Specific Guidelines for Anchors Conducting Programmes, and Guidelines to Prevent Communal Colour in Reporting Crime.
4. Failure to manage panellists: The anchor encouraged inflammatory rhetoric, allowed certain panellists to make derogatory statements unchecked, and failed to ensure fairness.
5. Disclaimers deemed inadequate: NBDSA held that disclaimers do not absolve broadcasters of responsibility for ensuring neutrality and adherence to guidelines.

Directions by NBDSA:

• Warning issued: The broadcaster was issued a warning for violating broadcasting guidelines.
• Removal of content: The broadcaster was directed to remove the broadcast from all platforms and confirm compliance within seven days.
• Circulation of the order: The order was to be shared with NBDA members, editors, and legal heads, hosted on the NBDSA website, included in the annual report, and released to the media.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

CJP’s Landmark Victory Against Hate in Media | Times Now Navbharat Pulled Up by NBDSA

Championing Justice: CJP’s Guide to Filing NBDSA Complaints

CJP Victories 2023: NBDSA fines communal news shows

NBDSA orders mainstream news channels to remove shows, fines imposed

The post NBDSA holds biased anchors accountable: Orders removal of communal content from Times Now Navbharat and Zee News following CJP’s complaints appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Each of the four instances reflects a serious violation of ethical journalism, highlighting the critical role of the media in shaping informed, unbiased discourse. The NBDSA’s decision to remove the broadcasts and issue stern warnings against the broadcaster is a reminder that media must operate within the framework of fairness, accuracy, and respect for all communities. This victory marks a step forward in holding broadcasters accountable for their content and ensuring that the principles of religious harmony, objectivity, and truth are upheld in every broadcast.

The NBDSA’s firm stance reinforces the importance of responsible journalism and serves as a clear message to all media outlets: ethical standards cannot be compromised in the pursuit of sensationalism or polarising narratives. The action taken in these four cases sets a significant precedent for maintaining the integrity of broadcasting and protecting the public from misleading and harmful content.

1. Order on complaint against ‘Operation Mazaar’ show broadcasted by TNN

Brief about the complaint filed against the show:

On June 27, 2023, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a complaint to with the NBDSA regarding a debate show that aired on Times Now Navbharat on May 22, 2023, titled ‘धामी सरकार का ‘ऑपरेशन मजार’, ‘गजवा-ए-हिंद’ की साजिश के किससे जुड़े तार?’. The complaint was escalated to the NBDSA after having complained to the broadcaster on May 29, 2023. The show, which claimed to provide an analysis of alleged illegal mazaars (Islamic shrines) in Uttarakhand, repeatedly used inflammatory terms like ‘Mazaar jihad’ and ‘land jihad’. The host suggested that these Mazaars were part of a larger conspiracy to change the demographic landscape of Uttarakhand, particularly in Haridwar, by linking them to a Muslim agenda. It was claimed that these Mazaars were built on government land, with the goal of attracting Muslims to encroach upon and settle in those areas.

The show had claimed that Haridwar’s demographic had changed by 39-43% without citing any credible sources. It focused on demolitions of Mazaars on government land by the Uttarakhand government, framing it as part of a broader effort to counter an alleged “Islamic takeover” of the region. However, the hosts and panellists presented these claims without any evidence or reliable sources to back them up, especially when talking about Mazaars in areas like Jim Corbett National Park, which were depicted as having been built in remote places with the intention of attracting large crowds.

The program repeatedly aired provocative phrases such as ‘illegal mazaars’, ‘mazaar jihad’, and ‘land jihad’, despite the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) having previously warned media outlets against using such terms for their communal connotations. The complaint highlighted the potential danger of fuelling religious intolerance and persecution by framing Muslim places of worship as part of a sinister plot to alter India’s religious and demographic fabric. (Details may be read here.)

Observations made by the NBDSA:

1. Factual reporting: NBDSA noted that the broadcaster had the legitimate right to report on the encroachment of government land, which is an issue of public concern. However, the broadcast strayed from factual reporting by using terms like “Mazar jihad” and accusing the Muslim community of changing the demographic makeup.
2. Communal narrative: The terms used in the broadcast, such as “Mazar jihad,” and tickers like “Mazar jihad ka mastermind kaun?“, reinforced a communal narrative, giving an otherwise factual issue a religious and divisive tone. This was seen as an attempt to stir communal sentiments unnecessarily.
3. Violation of Reporting Standards: The broadcast failed to include the version of the other side of the parties, in order to ensure that the reporting remains unbiased, which was a clear violation of the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards, specifically regarding impartial and balanced reportage.
4. Previous Offense: NBDSA also noted that this was the second instance of similar communal colouring of a story by the broadcaster, particularly in the context of a conspiracy of government land encroachment.

Decision of the NBDSA:

1. Warning issued: NBDSA issued a warning to the broadcaster, stating that such practices would not be tolerated in the future, especially in case of sensitive issues. They emphasised that any similar violations would be dealt with more seriously.
2. Video Removal: NBDSA directed the broadcaster to remove the video of the broadcast from its website and YouTube, and to delete all associated links. The broadcaster must confirm to NBDSA within seven days that the video has been removed.

The complete order may be read below:

2. Order on complaint against debate show broadcasted by TNN

Brief about the complaint filed against the show:

On June 28, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a complaint against Times Now Navbharat over a problematic news segment titled “बाबा की सनातन शपथ…भड़काऊ पथ पर जमीयत! | Hindu Rashtra | Bageshwar Sarkar Vs Hasan Madni” which aired on May 22, 2023. The complaint was escalated to the NBDSA after having complained to the broadcaster on May 29, 2023. The show, hosted by Himanshu Dixit, centred around a speech by Hasan Madni and turned into a communal debate, where the host and participants propagated a divisive, Hindu-nationalist narrative. The show, as per the complaint, focused on a one-sided promotion of Hindu nationalism instead of presenting a balanced discussion, justifying the idea of a Hindu Rashtra and labelling India as always having been a Hindu nation.

The debate featured four participants: Vijay Shankar Tiwari (VHP representative), Mahant Raju Das (self-identified Hindu saint), Atiq-ur-Rehman (Muslim scholar), and Maajid Haidari (Muslim writer). The two Hindu representatives, especially Mahant Raju Das, engaged in extreme Hindutva rhetoric. They used the platform to attack the Muslim participants and stigmatise the Islamic faith. Notably, Mahant Das pressured Maajid Haidari to say “Jai Shree Ram” and “Vande Mataram” to prove his secularism, suggesting that Haidari’s refusal would mean he did not respect all religions.

The complaint provided that the host, instead of intervening, allowed the communal diatribe to continue without challenging the inflammatory statements. He even prompted a controversial discussion about whether anyone who does not accept Islam is considered an infidel. The segment was further marred by anti-Muslim text being displayed repeatedly, accusing Jamiat Ulema-E-Hind of supporting terrorism, protesting against CAA-NRC, and promoting Islamic education.

CJP highlighted that the show sought to pit the two communities against each other, promoting an anti-Muslim narrative that stigmatised Muslims as engaging in sinister activities. This, they argued, was harmful to India’s social fabric and violated journalistic standards. (Details may be read here)

Observations made by the NBDSA:

1. Freedom of speech to be exercised responsibly: NBDSA recognised that although the broadcaster has the right to debate controversial subjects like the one under discussion, this should not violate ethical broadcasting standards. It was underscored by the NBDSA that the debate on such issues must be conducted responsibly, ensuring that it does not disrupt societal harmony or public peace.
2. Failure to adhere to guidelines: As per the order, the broadcaster violated the Specific Guidelines for Anchors conducting Programmes, which require anchors to maintain objectivity and prevent panellists from propagating extreme, divisive views. NBDSA observed that the anchor failed to curb the communal diatribe, allowing Mahant Raju Das to ask a panellist to prove their secularism by chanting “Jai Shri Ram”, further intensifying the communal undertone.
3. Threat to social harmony: NBDSA highlighted that the broadcast risked disturbing peace and social harmony by providing a platform for communal rhetoric, which could polarise communities.

Decision of the NBDSA:

1. Warning and advisory: NBDSA issued a stern warning to the broadcaster, advising them to be cautious when selecting panellists for debates to ensure that discussions do not threaten social peace and harmony. The broadcaster was reminded to strictly adhere to the guidelines for conducting debates and prevent panellists from promoting divisive views.
2. Video Removal: The broadcaster was directed to remove the broadcast from its website and YouTube, ensuring that all hyperlinks and access to the video were also removed. The broadcaster was required to confirm this action to NBDSA within seven days.

The complete order may be read below:

3. Order on complaint against ‘illegal madrassas’ show broadcasted by TNN

Brief about the complaint filed against the show:

On June 28, 2023, Citizens for Justice and Peace had filed a complaint against the debate show “Rashtravad: मदरसों पर नकेल, नहीं चलेगा विदेशी फंडिंग का खेल?” aired on May 22, 2024, on Times Now Navbharat. The show was based on a survey by the Uttar Pradesh Government, claiming that 8,841 madrassas in the state were illegal and that action would be taken against 4,000 of them.

The complaint highlights the polarised and communal nature of the debate, where speakers not directly related to the issue were invited to discuss it. The host, Pandey, focused on twisting the findings of the government report, making unsubstantiated claims such as madrassas are receiving foreign funding. Furthermore, the host’s questions, such as “Will madrassas with foreign funding be locked down?” and “Why are Maulanas worried about action against madrassas?” were framed in a provocative manner.

As per the complaint, the debate was also marked by the host frequently interrupting speakers supporting the Muslim community, while allowing ideologically aligned participants, like Vinod Bansal (VHP), to make unsubstantiated claims linking madrassas to jihad and terrorism without scrutiny. Clearly, the channel was trying to push this narrative of the madrassa or all madrassas being a/the centre of illegalities. The presentation of the debate, by repeatedly showing the students reading Namaaz at a madrassa. The complaint pointed to one point wherein the host shows data of some people from Muslim community linked with terror outfits, who once studied in these madrassas (presumably).

The show’s tickers, such as “If Yogi is acting on madrassas, why are Maulanas worried?” and “If terrorism is being taught, will madrassas be shut down?” reinforced the inflammatory narrative. The complaint emphasised that the host showed clear bias, failed to remain neutral, and allowed baseless claims to go unchecked, leading to a divisive, polarising debate.

In conclusion, the complaint had argued that the debate lacked focus, with irrelevant participants, and was designed to stir communal tensions rather than provide constructive discussion. (Details may be read here)

Observations by the NBDSA:

1. Right to legitimate raise concerns sans misinformation: The broadcaster was within its rights to raise concerns about madrassas based on the Uttar Pradesh Government’s survey of illegal madrassas, however the same should have been done without slanting the findings of the government survey.
2. Distortion of facts: The NBDSA found that the broadcaster distorted the survey’s findings, suggesting madrassas were linked to terrorism without credible evidence.
3. Problematic statements: Statements from the anchor and panellists insinuating madrassas were breeding grounds for terrorism violated principles of impartiality and neutrality.
4. Violation of standards and guidelines: The broadcaster breached broadcasting standards on impartiality, objectivity, and racial/religious harmony.

Decision by the NBDSA

1. Censure: The broadcaster was censured for distorting facts and making unsupported allegations.
2. Advisory: The broadcaster was advised to adhere to principles of impartiality and neutrality in future broadcasts.
3. Content removal: The broadcaster was ordered to remove the video from all platforms within 7 days and confirm this to NBDSA.

The complete order may be read below:

4. Order on complaint against ‘stay on ASI survey of Gyanvapi Mosque’ show broadcasted by TNN

Brief about the complaint filed against the show:

On August 16, 2023, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) lodged a complaint against the Times Now Navbharat show “Rashtravad | Gyanvapi Survey के बाद ‘ज्ञानवापी आंदोलन”, which aired on July 24, 2023, the same day the Supreme Court of India granted interim protection against the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey at the Gyanvapi Mosque. The complaint raised concerns about the divisive and communal nature of the debate presented during the show.

The complaint emphasised that the host, Rakesh Pandey, presented a one-sided narrative that painted the Muslim community in a suspicious light. Before the debate even began, the host propagated his biased views, suggesting that Muslims were trying to delay the survey because they were “scared of the truth coming out.” The host framed the issue as a battle between the Muslim community and the truth, without any effort to present multiple perspectives. The questions posed by the host to the debate participants were instigating and communal, such as questioning why Muslim parties were afraid of uncovering the truth beneath the Gyanvapi mosque, and whether the ASI survey had found evidence of a temple. These questions were criticised for their provocative nature and for creating a polarised environment.

The complaint also pointed out that during the debate, the host allowed Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, a representative of the Hindu parties in the Gyanvapi case, to dominate the conversation. The show gave the impression of promoting a religious or sectarian agenda rather than presenting a balanced news discussion. CJP highlighted how the host repeatedly implied that the Muslim community was obstructing the truth and suggested that the issue was part of a religious confrontation. The host also compared the Gyanvapi case to the Ayodhya case, accusing Muslims of provoking the community by drawing parallels with the Babri Masjid.

Furthermore, the complaint criticised the lack of neutral questioning, pointing out that the host never questioned whether the Muslim parties had the right to approach the Supreme Court or expressed any doubt about the existence of a temple beneath the mosque. Instead, the host consistently implied that the truth would eventually be revealed in favour of the Hindu community.

CJP concluded that the show violated journalistic ethics by promoting a communal agenda and failing to uphold impartiality on a sub-judice matter, as required by the NBDSA. They demanded that the impugned content be removed from all social media platforms of the channel and that a public apology be issued for the communal nature of the reporting. (Details may be read here)

Observations by the NBDSA:

1. Editorial freedom and sensitivity: NBDSA acknowledged that while the broadcaster has editorial freedom to conduct debates on any topic, such discussions must be handled with care, especially when they relate to sensitive issues currently under judicial consideration.
2. Failure to adhere to reporting guidelines: The NBDSA observed that the anchor violated specific guidelines related to reporting on court proceedings. The anchor raised conjectural and speculative questions about the motives of Muslims regarding the Gyanvapi Mosque survey, which is sub judice. This violated Guideline 3, which prohibits conjecture and speculation in reports related to ongoing court proceedings.
3. Communal bias: Instead of maintaining an objective and neutral tone, the anchor repeatedly referred to the parties involved as “Hindu Paksh” and “Muslim Paksh,” which contributed to giving the debate a communal slant. This was seen as a misrepresentation of the facts and a violation of broadcasting standards related to racial and religious harmony.
4. Violation of broadcasting ethics: By framing the debate in a communal context, the broadcaster violated the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards, especially the guidelines on impartiality and neutrality when reporting on sensitive matters such as court proceedings.

Decision by the NBDSA:

1. Admonition and censure: The NBDSA decided to admonish and censure the broadcaster for violating broadcasting standards. The broadcaster was advised by the NBDSA to avoid giving a communal slant to sensitive issues, especially when the matter is pending in court.
2. Content removal: The broadcaster was directed to remove the video of the broadcast from its website and YouTube, and delete all hyperlinks to the content. The broadcaster must confirm this action in writing to NBDSA within 7 days of the order.

The complete order may be read below:

In summary, through all these four orders, the NBDSA emphasised the importance of adhering to court reporting guidelines and maintaining neutrality and impartiality in broadcasts, especially on sensitive and ongoing legal matters. The broadcaster was censured for not doing so, along with being asked to remove the impugned video, and corrective actions were mandated.

By ordering the removal of the contentious shows and issuing warnings to the broadcaster, the NBDSA has set a firm precedent for maintaining integrity, impartiality, and responsibility in public discourse. This series of orders highlights a clear message: responsible journalism is essential for fostering an informed society, and breaches that compromise fairness, objectivity, and communal harmony will not go unchecked. The decisive steps taken here reinforce the role of media as a pillar of democracy, entrusted with delivering accurate and unbiased information. As the media landscape continues to evolve, these actions serve as a reminder that accountability and ethical standards are the foundation upon which trustworthy journalism is built.

It is essential to note that the NBDSA also clarified that any statements made by the parties involved in the NBDSA proceedings, whether in response to the complaint or while presenting their viewpoints, as well as any findings or observations made by the NBDSA in these proceedings or in this Order, are solely for the purpose of assessing potential violations of broadcasting standards and guidelines. Hence, these statements are not to be interpreted as admissions by the broadcaster, nor are the findings to be considered as determinations of any civil or criminal liability.

Related:

CJP files complaint against Times Now Navbharat for communal bias in their news segment on the arrest of singer Altaf Hussain in Assam

CJP files complaint against Times Now Navbharat for broadcasting misleading news on Madrassas

CJP Impact! Two contentious Times Now Navbharat shows directed to be removed by NBDSA

NBDSA: CJP escalates complaint to authorities against Times Now Navbharat debate show

CJP Victory! NBDSA orders removal of contested debate show aired by Times Now Navbharat

CJP complains against 3 shows of Times Now Navbharat

The post Media accountability in action: Four contentious shows taken down by NBDSA based on CJP’s complaints appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per the complaint, on August 18, Priyank Kanoongo, Chairman of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), made a series of allegations on ‘X’ (formerly Twitter). He claimed that government-funded madrassas in Bihar are teaching from books like “Talimul Islam” that describe non-Muslims as “Kafir,” or those who do not believe in Allah. Kanoongo further alleged that Hindu children are enrolled in these madrassas, but the Bihar government has not containing books printed in Pakistan, criticizing UNICEF for its involvement and labelling it as “appeasement.” Kanoongo argued that madrassas are unsuitable for basic education and called for their dissolution, suggesting that children should instead attend regular schools.

At the outset, CJP highlighted that in both these shows, the anchors have the framed the narrative in such a skewed manner that the Madrassas across the country have been painted as suspicious places that are attempting to brainwash children and create the image of the Madrassas and respective teacher as enemies of this country.  

CJP mentioned in its complaint that “the language used in these questions is extremely Islamophobic as it perpetuates harmful stereotypes and fosters suspicion towards the Muslim community. The unsubstantial implication that madrassas are involved in conspiracies while questioning the content of their educational materials through unfair portrayal of Islamic schools as breeding grounds for extremism is not just and neutral coverage of an important issue. This generalisation ignores the diversity within Islamic education and promotes a narrative of fear and mistrust. Additionally, the use of terms like “Kafir” in a negative context vilifies Islamic beliefs and suggests an inherent hostility towards other religions, further alienating Muslims. Moreover, this kind of language promotes an “us vs. them” mentality, deepening divisions between Muslims and non-Muslims. By casting suspicion on the Muslim community and misrepresenting their beliefs, the questions contribute to the marginalization and discrimination of Muslims. This Islamophobic rhetoric not only misrepresents the religion but also encourages hostility, making it harmful and divisive in both social and political contexts.”

The report presented by host Rakesh Pandey contained the same statement of NCPCR chairperson Priyank Konoongo wherein he is saying that the syllabus of the Madrasas is such that it is not suitable for Hindu students, and creates an extreme opinion in the mind of the Muslim students regarding non-Muslims. The report also includes statements made by a Madrasa Principal, namely Mashroof Ahmad Qadri Nadvi, wherein he can be seen responding to the Times Now Navbharat reporter by stating that the present controversy is being created without any reason and is a distortion of understanding of the Islamic scriptures. Regarding the meaning of the word ‘Kafir,’ Principal Nadvi explained that it is an Arabic word meaning “denial.” He further clarified that in the Arabic context, a “Kafir” is someone who denies God or other truths.

CJP stated that “the host’s failure to moderate the discussion fairly, allowing derogatory language and accusations to go unchecked, further exacerbates the problem. By not challenging or correcting the inflammatory statements made by participants, the host implicitly endorses a narrative of extremism and radicalism being insubstantially associated with madrasas. This approach undermines the credibility of the debate and encourages a hostile environment where productive dialogue is replaced by sensationalism and divisiveness. Such coverage does a disservice to the audience, as it obscures the real issues at hand and prevents a meaningful exploration of the concerns surrounding religious education, ultimately contributing to a climate of intolerance and misunderstanding”.

In complaint CJP also cited the linguistically meaning of the word “kafir” for the sake of convenience. In which it has been stated that ‘linguistically, the Arabic word “Kafir”1derives from the root “kafara,” which means to cover or conceal. According to classical Islamic sources, “Kafir” literally means someone who covers or hides something. For instance, the night is referred to as “Kafir” because it conceals everything with darkness. Similarly, a farmer is called “Kafir” because he buries seeds in the ground. In Islamic terminology, “Kafir” denotes someone who rejects Islamic teachings and is considered unable to perceive the divine signs and guidance. The term is not intended as an insult to other religions but rather signifies a refusal to accept Islamic faith.”

Based on the extracts of the statements made by the speakers, the complaint states that both shows failed to provide a fair and nuanced exploration of the issue, focusing instead on sensationalism and divisive rhetoric. By presenting madrassas as breeding grounds for radicalism and using biased framing, these broadcasts contributed to the spread of Islamophobic sentiments and distorted the public’s understanding of Islamic education. The portrayal of madrasa education as inherently problematic, without acknowledging the diversity and context of these institutions, underscores the biased and harmful nature of the coverage provided by both shows.

However, the Deputy Director, Bihar State Madrasa Board denied the allegations raised by the NCPCR Chairperson Kanoongo. When TNN reported questioned Deputy Director, Bihar State Madrasa Board, Mr. Abdul Salam Ansari over the allegations of Muslims being imparted radical and divisive education against non-Muslims in the Madrassas of Bihar. Responding to the same, Ansari clarified that “this kind of syllabus is not in my Madrasa board. Whatever syllabus of 1st to 8th class of Bihar Government is approved by SCERT, all the syllabus are valid in my madrassas”. The reporter then referred to the allegations raised by the NCPCR Chairperson Kanoongo, to which Deputy Director Ansari replied by stating that “See, we do not have any information about this, it is not appropriate to comment on it until the official information comes”

The Complaint may be read here:

Related:

Complaint filed against IndiaTV by CJP for stoking fear and spreading anti-Muslim propaganda under the guise of Bangladesh crisis

Human Rights Watch reports that Modi made at least 110 Islamophobic remarks during 2024 election campaign

Bangladesh Situation Tumultuous, But Does Not Signify Islamic Extremist Dominance

The post CJP files complaint against TNN anchors for broadcasting misleading debate show appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In both the complaints, CJP had highlighted the partisan tenor used by the hosts to spread hatred for a particular religious minority. In one show, the protesting Muslims were deemed to be part of a “Jihadi Gang” conspiring to commit “Zameen Jihad”, while in the other show that host had unfoundedly accused the Muslims of instigating the community to destroy Ram Mandir.

First complaint- Eviction in Uttarakhand

The complaint: On January 30, a complaint had been filed by CJP with the NBDSA against the Times Now Navbharat’s communally divisive show titled “देवभूमि Uttarakhand में ‘जमीन जिहाद’ पर बुलडोजर एक्शन की बारी!” that aired on January 2, 2023. The show was based on the decision given by the Uttarakhand High Court, wherein the court had allowed the use of force to evict 4,000 families living on what the Railways had claimed to be their land.

Through the complaint, CJP had highlighted the polarising remarks that anchor had made with the aim of pushing the far-right propaganda of villianising the Muslim community. The complaint had raised objected to the derogatory and instigating terms used by the anchor, such as “Zameen Jihad”, “Mazhar Jihad”, “Jihaadi Gang” and “bulldozer action of the Dhami government”, to spread stigma and hatred against the Muslim community. The complaint had further argued that the one sided report presented in the show created suspicion in the minds of its viewers and persistently stigmatized the minority community to drive home the point that Muslims are always up to sinister activities by terming everything they into “Jihad” is harmful to the social fabric of this country.

The decision: Based on the submissions of both the parties and the complaint, the NBDSA noted that the broadcaster had given a communal colour to the whole issue of eviction on the orders of the Uttarakhand High Court. The NBDSA held that by portraying the protestors to be a part of a ‘Jihadi Gang’ and terming illegal encroachments as ‘Zameen Jihad’, the broadcaster had “re-iterated the prejudices or stereotypes that are historically used to target, attack and ridicule communities based on their religion.” Furthermore, the NBDSA observed that the word “Jihadi” was used out of context and the tickers in the background also reinforced the narrative of the broadcaster.

Based on the abovementioned, the NBDSA held the channel to be in violation of the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards and the Specific Guidelines covering Reportage on Racial and Religious Harmony. For the violations committed, the NBDSA admonished the broadcaster to not repeat the same in the future.

It was further directed by the statutory authority that the broadcaster was to remove the video of the impugned show from their channel and/or Youtube along with all the hyperlinks, and confirm the same to the NBDSA in writing within 7 days of the order.

The complete order can be read here: (Order 174)

Second complaint- Ram Mandir debate show

The complaint: On January 24, CJP had escalated a complaint to the NBDSA against Times Now Navbharat over their debate show aired on December 30, 2022 titled ‘Rashtravad | 2024 में Ram Mandir का उद्घाटन… अभी हथौड़े’ की बात क्यों?’ The debate topic in the show was an inflammatory comment made by a so-called maulvi Sajid Rashidi who is known to have extremist and unpopular views. By picking his statements as a news point and a point to conduct an hour long debate upon, the complaint urges that the channel gave fire to the discourse that was put to rest with the Supreme Court judgement in the Ayodhya land dispute verdict.

The complaint filed by CJP stated that the channel brazenly picked up a communal statement and made it a point of debate, and further exacerbated the impact of a divisive statement by calling in speakers with radicalized views and allowing them to hurl abuses at each other and also physically assault each other. The complaint further alleged that the intention of the show from the word go was to play with heightened communal sentiments, spread anti-Muslim sentiments and bash the entire Muslim community based on statements made by one Muslim individuals. The complaint also highlighted the problematic tickers that were used by the host, such as “Hindustan me ‘gazwa-e-hind’ ka plan? (Gazwa-i-hind being planned in India?)” and “Ram mandir todne ko uksayenge? (Will he incite them to destroy ram mandir?)”.

The order: The NBDSA took note of the objection raised by the complainant regarding conducting a debate show based on a statement made by Maulana Sajid Rashidi. On this, the NBDSA observed that “while it may have been inappropriate and uncharitable for the broadcaster to conduct a debate on the said topic”, the commission cannot impinge upon the right of the broadcaster to exercise their freedom of speech. Nonetheless, the commission also held that the broadcaster were required to their freedom in accordance with the guidelines, standards, code and advisories of the NBDSA.

Pertaining to this, the NBDSA held that the debate was not in good taste and did not follow the Specific Guidelines for Anchors conducting Programmes including Debates. In view of this, the NBDSA issued a warning to the broadcaster against telecasting such debates as well as be careful in selecting panellists for debates. The NBDSA also advised the broadcaster to strictly adhere to the guidelines set by the Commission. In furtherance to this, the statutory authority also directed the broadcaster to remove the video of the impugned show from their channel and/or Youtube along with all the hyperlinks, and confirm the same to the NBDSA in writing within 7 days of the order.

The complete order can be read here: (Order 173)

In both the cases, CJP was represented by Advocate Aparna Bhatt and Advocate Karishma Maria.

Related:

CJP writes to Times Now Navbharat for giving Israel-Hamas conflict a communal colour

CJP Impact! NBDSA warns News18 India against running communal narrative, fines Rs. 50,000

CJP Impact! NBDSA imposes cost on News18 India for two shows for airing hateful, inflammatory content

CJP Impact: NCM’s prompt action against ‘Miya Muslim’ remark; seeks report from Assam DGP

The post CJP Impact! NBDSA orders removal of two Times Now Navbharat shows (videos) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Both mentioned shows were based on the current ongoing conflict between a militant group Hamas and Israel. On October 7, an unprecedented attack was launched by Hamas on Israel which had reportedly resulted in the death of 1,400 people. In the retaliatory attacks and air strikes that have been launched by Israel in Gaza, at least 3,700 people have been killed, most of which were innocent civilians. While both innocent Israeli citizens and Palestinians have suffered casualties in this ongoing conflict, in India, this issue is being given a communal colour.

The two debate shows attempted to influence its audience with a skewed twist to the said conflict and painted the ones supporting the Palestinian cause of life, liberty and freedom from occupation as a “Muslim issue”. The two shows built a one-sided narrative that Muslims, leaders of the opposition and students of the left organisation protesting in support of Palestine were supporting the illegal activities of Hamas as well.

Through the complaint, we have highlighted that both the anchors of the debates, namely Rakesh Pandey and Naina Yadav, framed the narrative in such a partisan manner that Indian Muslims were shown as sympathisers of the militant group of Hamas due to their “religious connection”. In Pandey’s Rashtravad show, he had formulated the following question as the premise of the debate:

1. “Will there be support of terrorism owing to the religious connection shared?
2. Has the ‘Muslim leadership’ been exposed in this Israel-Hamas conflict?
3. Who is building the ‘Hamas think tank’ in India?”

As is evident, the said questions were formed in a way that portrayed the Muslim community and Muslim leaders supporting Israel in a suspicious and negative light. While the debate itself was biased, the host had concluded it by stating that “let me tell you why the leaders of the opposition says all this, it is because you find people in the country who are willing to go to a funeral of our Prime Ministers and who protest on the day that Yakub Menon underwent his death sentence. It is because these people think that they will appease the sentiments of a particular group that they make such statements.”

In Naina Yadav’s debate show, the question “whether the people of India will also support Hamas and are the leaders of the opposition instigating people?” was posed to the participants. The question in itself was biased and leading. Both of these shows contributed to the stigmatising and polarising environment that has been created for the Indian Muslims in the wake of escalating conflict in Palestinian and Israeli territories.

The complaint highlighted the duties of a host that are prescribed by the NBDSA (News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority) guidelines. The said guidelines state that hosts of a news segment are supposed to and expected to take a neutral stand, introduce a neutral theme and not side with a particular community to put any other community on the spot. And yet, in contravention of the guidelines, both the hosts Rakesh Pandey and Naina Yadav were keen on leading the debate with the question of whether the Muslim leaders of the opposition, protestors and the Muslim community are supporting Hamas and creating a ‘Hamas think tank’ within India. The complaint then highlighted the codes of ethics and principles of self-regulation as laid out by the NBDSA which were violated by Times Now Navbharat through these shows.

The complete complaint can be read here:

Related:

NBDSA: CJP ESCALATES COMPLAINT TO AUTHORITIES AGAINST TIMES NOW NAVBHARAT DEBATE SHOW

CJP SENDS COMPLAINT AGAINST MEDIA TRIAL ON ASI SURVEY OF GYANVAPI MOSQUE BY TIMES NOW NAVBHARAT

CJP VICTORY! NBDSA ORDERS REMOVAL OF CONTESTED DEBATE SHOW AIRED BY TIMES NOW NAVBHARAT

CJP COMPLAINS AGAINST 3 SHOWS OF TIMES NOW NAVBHARAT

The post CJP sends complaint to Times Now Navbharat over debate shows giving communal colour to the Israel-Hamas Conflict appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is essential to note that the host Rakesh Pandey had picked up a matter that was sub-judice, and presented only one-sided facts of the case. Even before the debate had started, the host had started spreading his diatribe and distinctly partisan views. The said debate show had themes that furthered a divisive discourse that heightened a communal divide throughout its narrative and did not try to mask this motive. Such journalism or electronic media coverage mitigates against the basic principles of fair and neutral journalism. 

The complaint stated: “it became evident in the choice and content spouted by not just the participants in the ‘debate’ but also unfortunately displayed by the host of the show that the statements being made were not unbiased or neutral. The host was even observed posing questions to the participants from the Muslim community on the debating panel in the accusatory manner, while an urbane and inclusive attitude was displayed towards participants from the majority Hindu community.”

The complaint also provided the questions that the debate was going to be based upon, which were inciting and leading to say the least. The questions were as follows:

• “What was found in those four hours of survey that led to the chaos amongst the Muslim parties?

• Why are the Muslim parties so afraid of uncovering the truth beneath the Gyanvapi mosque? 

• Did the Survey team actually find the evidence of a Temple?

• The ASI Survey has been stopped on an interim basis, what will happen afterwards? 

• Will there be a ‘Gyanvapi movement’ after the survey?”

In the complaint, it was purported that the debate show appeared more like a one-sided show promoting the host’s version of the Hindu cause or a religious/sectarian debate rather than a news room debate. Referring to the same, CJP highlighted the violations of the guidelines of issued by the NBDSA and stated: “As per the guidelines of the NBDSA, the host is supposed to and expected to take a neutral stand, introduce a neutral theme and not side with a particular community to put any other community on the spot, but that clearly did not happen. As is apparent from the videos and the statements highlighted by us, the host Rakesh Pandey was keen on leading the debate with the question of whether the Muslim community is delaying the proceeding and hiding the truth. As the anchor of show on a news channel, that is supposed to have a neutral and unbiased theme, the host did not even attempt to have any non-communal theme on the show.”

Through the complaint, CJP has urged the esteemed Authority to take cognizance of this show aired by Times Now Navbharat and take necessary action against them for spreading misinformation and partisan ideology, and also in the process, hurting the religious sentiments of the minority community.

The complaint may be read here:

Related:

NBDSA: Complaint filed against Times Now’s inciteful ‘Ram mandir’ show

Times Now Navbharat conducts media trial over Gyanvapi Mosque survey, CJP sends complaint

Times Now Navbharat: Where hate sells like hot cakes daily

Complaint to Times Now on polarised debate over madrassa survey in UP

UP: After Gyanvapi, Mathura Court Orders Shahi Idgah Survey; ‘Violation’ of Places of Worship Act, Say Activists

The post CJP escalates complaint against Times Now Navbharat show on Gyanvapi Mosque to NBDSA appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Essentially, the host, Rakesh Pandey, had picked up a matter that was sub-judice, and presented only one sided facts of the case. Even before the debate had started, the Host had started spreading his diatribe and polarized views. The host tried to build the premise of the show by depicting the Muslim community in a suspicious light, questioning their intentions behind urging an estoppel on the survey. The host had intentionally put polarizing and accusatory questions to the participants of the debate to put seeds of doubt in the minds of his audience by terming the stay on the survey as an attempt to delay the result as “Muslims were scared of the truth coming out.”

Prior to the debate segment, the host had announced the questions upon which the discussion were to take place. The questions, provided below, were instigating and communal in itself:

“1. What was found in those four hours of survey that led to the chaos amongst the Muslim parties?

2. Why are the Muslim parties so afraid of uncovering the truth beneath the Gyanvapi mosque?
3. Did the Survey team actually find the evidence of a Temple?
4. The ASI Survey has been stopped on an interim basis, what will happen afterwards?
5. Will there be a ‘Gyanvapi movement’ after the survey?”

During the debate segment, a full on media trial on the Gyanvapi mosque case had ensured. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, the advocate on record (AOR) representing the Hindu parties in the court in the Gyanvapi Mosque case were also a part of the panel.  The debate show appeared more like a one sided show promoting the host’s version of the Hindu cause or a religious/sectarian debate rather than a news room debate. In its complaint, CJP also highlighted certain extracts from the show that are specifically contentious.

The complaint stated: “Instead of framing an issue in a sober fashion with an intent to explore various aspects of the debate, the host continued the debate representing his own version of the ‘Hindu cause’. This displays partisan coverage and does not fit well with democratic, constitutional principles of independent journalism. The host continued throughout the show while making some extremely problematic statements towards the end too. At one point towards the end of the debate, the host asked advocate Jain whether the fight of Gyanvapi will be as prolonged as the fight over Ayodhya was for. While the host himself made the comparison of the Gyanvapi case with Ayodhya case, he has also accused the Muslims for comparing the said situation to Babri Masjid to provoke the Muslim Community.”

In the complaint, CJP also emphasized that the not once was it put to question as to whether the Muslim parties had the right to approach the Supreme Court or not. Not once did the host show any doubt regarding the existence of a temple beneath the Mosque, rather have repeatedly implied that the truth of the temple will come out. Thus, it was undoubted that the host let his biases and prejudices against the Muslim community cloud the role he is supposed to play in a debate show and made it evident that he was batting for the Hindu cause.

The complaint stated: “He kept reiterating through the show that the Muslim community, by approaching the Supreme Court, was against the truth coming out, making the entire show a communal battleground. This does not only violate the made guidelines issued by the News Broadcasting Digital and Standards Authority (NBDSA) from time to time of which the channel is a member but also stands in violation of our constitutional principles.”

Through the complaint, CJP has sought the removal of the impugned content from all social media accounts of the channel, and issuance of a public apology for the communal reportage.

The full complaint may be read here:

Related:

Another complaint to Times Now on polarised debate over Madrassa survey in UP

Times Now Navbharat uses ‘mazaar jihad’ in a show, CJP sends complaint

CJP Victory! NBDSA fines News18 over hateful shows

CJP Victory: NBDSA slams fine of Rs. 25,000 on News18

NBDSA: CJP escalates complaint against Times Now Navbharat’s ‘Zameen Jihad’ Show

The post Times Now Navbharat conducts media trial over Gyanvapi Mosque survey, CJP sends complaint appeared first on SabrangIndia.