NBDSA 1.pdfbalance, and harmony without doubt

Address: Mantec House, 2nd Floor, C-56/5, Sector 62, Noida – 201 301
Telefax: 0120-4129712, Email: authority@nbdanewdelhi.com, Website: www.nbdanewdelhi.com
ONLY BY EMAIL
September 29, 2025
Citizens for Justice and Peace
Nirant, Juhu Tara Road, Juhu,
Santacruz (West)
Mumbai – 400 049
Email: cjpindia@gmail.com
Ms. Anita Sharma
Compliance Officer NBDSA
Independent News Services Private
Ltd.
India TV Broadcast Centre, B-30,
Sector -85, Noida - 201 305
Email: anitasharma@indiatvnews.com
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Order of NBDSA in Complaint (No.154) dated 21.10.2024 filed by Citizens
for Justice & Peace against “Coffee Par Kurukshetra” show aired on India TV
on 15.10.2024.
Attached please find Order dated September 25, 2025 passed by News Broadcasting
& Digital Standards Authority.
Regards
Annie Joseph
For & on behalf of NBDSA

NBDSA
NEWS BROADCASTING & DIGITAL STANDARDS AUTHORITY
News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority
Order No. 205(2025)
Complainant: Citizens for Justice & Peace
Channel: India TV
Programme: "Coffee Par Kurukshetra: यूपी में पत्थरबाजों की फौज कहांसे आई
Bahraich Violence"
Date of Broadcast: 15.10.2024
?UP
Since the complainant was not satisfied with the response received from the
broadcaster, on 06.11.2024, the complaint was escalated to the second level of
redressal.
Complaint dated 21.10.2024
The impugned show concerned the ongoing tension that erupted in Bahraich's
Maharajganj area in Uttar Pradesh. The host with apparent malafide intent
generalised the incidents of violence, attributing blame solely to Muslims and
portrayingthem as extremists and aggressors.
This narrative emerged following a tragic event on October 13, when a violent
incident unfolded during a Durga Puja immersion procession. Tensions escalated
when loud music was played near a mosque, leading to gunfire thattragically claimed
the life of 22-year-old Ram Gopal Mishra, a resident. This incident ignited
widespread violence and communal unrest in the area. In the aftermath, mobs
retaliated by vandalising and setting fire to numerous properties, including homes,
shops, hospitals, and vehicles.
A video surfaced showing Ram Gopal removing a green flag from a rooftop and
replacing it with a saffron flag before he was shot. Authorities arrested five suspects
linked to Mishra's death after an encounter with Uttar Pradesh Police, during which
two of the suspects sustained gunshot wounds.
The host targeted the Muslim community, propagated anti-Islam theories, and
spread a divisive agenda. The impugned show was premised on multiple incidents
across the country, specifically chosen to paintthe Muslim community as aggressive.
The participants present during the show included Professor Sangeet Ragi, Pradeep
Singh, and Shantanu Gupta. In the show, the Muslim-majority areas were labelled as
"sensitive" solely because of their demographic composition, fuelling a false
narrative about the Muslim population, their festivals, and religious practices. By
urging Hindus to object to the Azaan and emphasising exaggerated or imagined
threats from the Muslims, the narrative further deepened divisions and stoked
communal tensions. This framing contributed to an increasingly polarised
atmosphere, fostering mistrust and hostility between communities.
Address: Mantec House, 2nd Floor, C-56/5, Sector 62, Noida-201 301
Telefax: 0120-4129712, Email: authority@nbdanewdelhi.com, Website: www.nbdanewdelhi.com
He

NBDSA
During the programme, Professor Sangeet Ragi launched into a divisive and
communal narrative. He drew a provocative comparison to the Godhra incident,
stating that, similarly, during the train burning and the subsequent Gujaratriots, the
blame had also been unfairly placed on Hindu Kar Sevaks. This framing not only
distorted the current situation but also deepened communal tensions by invoking
past conflicts.
The host failed to intervene as Professor Sangeet Ragi made provocative statements,
which were intended to pit the Hindu community against the Muslim community.
Instead of challenging, the host reinforced these divisive remarks by citing a Dainik
Bhaskar report about a religious flag being hoisted in Amroha. Ragi immediately
corrected him, stating that the flag had been raised on a temple, further spreading
misinformation.
Ragi then proceeded to present a deeply troubling narrative, portraying extremism
within the Islamic community as inherent and framing the growing Muslim
population as a direct threat to Hindu interests. He warned that Hindu complacency
was reminiscent of the mistakes that led to the Partition of India. He emphasised
that Hindu cultural practices were under siege. By linking current tensions to
historical events, Ragi's statements fuelled a false narrative that Muslim influence
poses a threat, contributing to communal polarisation.
The statements made by Professor Ragi were deeply problematic and Islamophobic
as they perpetuated harmful stereotypes and promoted religious intolerance. They
suggested that Hindu practices were being unfairly restricted in favour of Muslim
traditions, creating a false narrative of Hindu victimhood. By framing Azaan and
Muslim festivals as disruptions to Hindu customs, the speaker fostered animosity
between the two communities. Furthermore, the assertion that Muslimswere "given
Pakistan" and that India belongs primarily to Hindus was a dangerous and divisive
remark that undermined the secular fabric of the nation. It stoked communal
tension by portraying Muslims as outsiders who do not belong, disregarding India's
pluralistic identity. The inflammatory language about "impurity" and implied threats
of retaliation escalated these sentiments, encouraging hostility and deepening
societal divisions, which could incite violence and further marginalised the Muslim
community.
Ragi claimed that Mahatma Gandhi called Hindus cowards and Muslims bullies. By
selectively invoking Mahatma Gandhi's words, Ragi distorted the historical context
to reinforce harmful stereotypes, fuel communal divisions, and perpetuate a
narrative that framed Muslims as aggressors and Hindus as perpetual victims. His
assertion that police officers in India regard Muslim-majority areas as "communally
sensitive"was designed to cast these communities as dangerous and fear-inducing.
By framing these areas as exclusive zones in need of protection from so-called
2

NBDSA
"Islamic aggression," Ragi fostered an atmosphere of mistrust and deepened
communal divisions. His claim that these perceptions are rooted in Islamic theology
only amplified the stigmatisation and fear surrounding Muslim citizens.
The host, before moving on to the next guest, engaged with Ragi's provocative
comments and misleading theories about the Muslim population and Islam. He
asked, “ठीक है, इस पर आगे बात करते हैं की इसका Sanction कहाँ से मिल रहा है?". In response, Ragi
asserted that this sanction originates from "Theology" (Islamic theology). The host
skilfully navigated Ragi's controversial views on Islam, probing deeper into his
assertions.
The host intentionally generalised Muslim citizens as responsible for violence by
emphasising a series ofincidents linked to communal tensions during the Durga Puja
processions. By citing specific events-such as unrest in Bahraich, Garhwa,
Kaushambi, Howrah, and Sitamarhi-the host aimed to paint Muslims as instigators
of conflict. This narrative reinforced negative stereotypes and fostered a divisive
view of the Muslim community, ignoring the complexity of the situation and the
broader societal context.
The host then referenced the Nuh violence and Delhi's Jahangir Puri riots,
encouraging the guests to generalise these incidents as reflective of the Muslim
community's dominance and propensity for violence.
The next participant, Pradeep Singh, introduced his own inflammatory and
communal rhetoric in response to the host's questions. He escalated the discussion
by stating, "Where do the stones come from? We have seen the visuals of that during the Delhi
riots"
Singh invoked a communal incident to generalise and perpetuate the narrative that
Muslims inherently harbour animosity towards Hindu festivals and rituals due to an
extremist mindset. He referencedariot in Gujarat, where temples and shops were
allegedly burned, leading to the death of 660 people. This selective invocation of
communal violence across the country appeared to be aimed at
at portraying Muslims
as hostile to Hindus and their celebrations.
Singh recounted an incident in Tamil Nadu, where Muslims refused to allow a
Hindu Shobha Yatra to pass through a Muslim-majority area near a mosque. He
claimed that the district administration sided with the Muslim community,arguing
that since they constituted 90 percent of the local population, they believed they
had the authority to impose such restrictions. However, Singh noted that the
Madras High Court ultimately rejected this request and allowed the Shobha Yatra
to proceed.
3
tue

NBDSA
Singh and the host neglected to address the history of anti-social elements
deliberately playing loud music and throwing colours at mosques during religious
processions in such areas, which have often created law and order situations, raising
tensions between communities.
The host then brought the Muslim community back into the discussion, stating that
"But they (Muslims) considered it their right to such an extent that they went to court!". Singh
responded to the host that They (Muslim) thought that this is a very natural thing. When
you have this kind of mentality,you can guess whatyou can do. They (Muslims) always have an
excuse to commit violence." He suggested that Muslims "considered it their right" to
challenge the Shobha Yatra in court, and Singh's inflammatory response that
Muslims "ahways have an excuse to commitviolence" was extremely dangerous and divisive.
Then the host added his words, "बहाना और हथियार,” Singh once again, with the intent
to portray the Muslims as an enemy of the Hindu Community and their festivals,
attempted to challenge inter-faith religious co-existence.
The point raised by Professor Ragi regardingthe sensitivity of areas due to Muslim
dominance and extremist ideologies was further fuelled and supported by Singh,
who reinforced Ragi's communal segregation and divisive arguments.
Professor Ragi then escalated the discussion further by citing a statement attributed
to Maharshi Arvind, asserting that a time will come when Hindus must take to the
streets. Professor Ragi's remarks, invoking Maharshi Arvind suggested that Hindus
will eventually need to "take sticks and come out on the streets" to confront the
"mind-set of Islam," were profoundly dangerous. Furthermore, the host once again
shifted the discussion to a communal theme, actively engaging in a provocative
dialogue. He supported the points made by Professor Ragi, clearly affirming his
statements without any interruption.
Another guest, Shantanu Gupta, shifted the discussion to the Delhi riots, engaging
both himself and the host in the topic. Gupta asserted that during the Delhi riots,
petrol bombs were stored in crates. He emphasised that there was systematic
planning and machinery behind the riots, suggesting that Muslims are habitual
offenders in such instances due to the organised storage of stones and petrol
bombs. Then, Shantanu Gupta displayed a photo on his mobile, stating that "stones
were also kept in it (Crates) and the stones were managed verywell,just like the builders make
them from gravel, the stones were kept ofa very big size that ifa person hits his head, he will die.
So, theywere prepared and as Ragi ji said, “this is a matter oftoday, not a matter oftenyears".
Starting at the 18:40 mark, the show took a very divisive tone, openly targeting the
Muslim community. Guest Shantanu Gupta discussed Azaan, which was
completely unrelated to the main theme. This shift was caused directly by the
4

NBDSA
NEWS BROADCASTING& DIGITAL STANDARDS AUTHORITY
communalrhetoric of the other guests. The host showed no interest in performing
his duty as a host and restraining the guests from vilifying the religious practices of
a minority community.
it
Shantanu Gupta's claims were indicative of a broader misinformation campaign
aimed at inciting communal tensions. His assertion that B.R. Ambedkar identified
three specific reasons for conflict between Hindus and Muslims was misleading and
taken out of context. Moreover, Gupta's interpretation of Islamic practices,
particularly the wording of the Azaan,was deeply flawed. By framing the Azaan as
inherently exclusive or provocative, Gupta perpetuated divisive stereotypes that
further alienated communities and stoked fear. Such rhetoric is dangerous as
misinforms the public and undermines the values ofcoexistence and mutual respect
that are essential for a pluralistic society. Shantanu Gupta's comments on the Azaan,
implying that many do not understand its significance, were intentionally
provocative and aimed at stirring existing narratives around religious practices. He
stated, "आधो को तो अज़ान का मतलब भी नही पता होगा, अगर मतलब पता होगा तोसच में हमें कोईदिक्कत नही
होगी." Following this, both host and guest Pradeep Singh echoed communal
sentiments regarding the Azaan, with Singh saying, "दिक्कत यही है कि दिक्कत नहींहै,” while
the host emphasised, "मैं वही कह रहा हूँकिकिसी के दिमाग मेंनही आताकिक्यूँहो रहीहै अज्ञान?"
Although the host later claimed there was no issue with the Azaan, his framing of
the conversation suggested an attempt to provoke doubt and question the
legitimacy of this long-standing practice, which has coexisted peacefully within
India's diverse cultural landscape. This line of questioning not only undermined the
significance of the Azaan but also sought to challenge the very essence of interfaith
coexistence in the country. By casting suspicion on a religious observance integral
to the Muslim community, the host and guests fostered a sense of division and
distrust among viewers. Their remarks resonated with a troubling trend that
attempts to paint Muslims as outsiders whose traditions are unwelcome in the
public sphere.
Moreover, the host's affirmation of Professor Ragi's provocative statement about
why Hindus should endure the Azaan five times daily further escalated the tension.
The host's remarks underscored a dangerous double standard that suggested that the
religious rights of one community can be questioned and undermined, while
simultaneously stoking resentment towards another.
The overall tone of the show reflected a deliberate strategy to explore and amplify
stereotypes and false narratives about Muslims and Islam, rather than fostering
understanding or respect for diversity.
5
Ahe

NBDSA
The guest, Pradeep Singh, reacted to the narrative staged by all the participants and
said, "Look!What is happening now started during the time ofthe CAA; then the pandemic
came and the momentum stopped. This is a direct preparation for civil war. They (Muslims) say,
"The time has come for the decision ofwho willfight."The time has come for the decision ofwho
willfight."
Prof. Ragi expressed his affirmation towards the objectionable remark made by
guest Pradeep Singh. It is disturbing and disappointing that the host did not stop
and interrupt the guest for making such a communal and provocative remark.
The discussion was against brough to Dr. Ambedkar's book, wherein Prof. Ragi
mentioned about the Mohammad Bim-Qasim and Mughal in reference with the
Ambedkar's book. He said that देखिये न ! यानी लूटेरे कौन हे हमारे देश "We and they” हर नेशनल
नैरेटिव मैं होता है, हम और वे,वे कौन थे? ये लूटेरे! This kind of language promoted a we vs. they"
mentality, deepening divisions between Muslims and non-Muslims.
The host failed to impose any restrictions on the panellists regarding their communal
and provocative views, referencing a tweet from Samajwadi Party Chief and MP
Akhilesh Yadav about the recent violence in Bahraich. In his tweet, Yadav had
criticised the Uttar Pradesh government's administration for poorly managing the
Yatra's route and questioned what song was played during the procession that may
have provoked tensions within the community. By quoting Yadav's tweet without
critical context, the host effectively allowed the conversation to veer towards blame
and speculation rather than focusing on the need for constructive dialogue and
understanding among communities.
Following this, Shantanu Gupta reiterated harmful stereotypes by suggesting that
Muslims are inherently extremist and incapable of accepting or respecting other
religious beliefs. Such assertions perpetuate a damaging narrative that paints
Muslims as intolerant, further entrenching societal divides. Gupta's comments
reflect a broader pattern of discourse that disregards the complexities of individual
beliefs and practices in favour of reductive generalisations.
Pradeep Singh then escalated the rhetoric,as he suggested that the mere presence of
Hindus is a problem for other communities, framing existence itself as a point of
contention.
Such rhetoric not only stoked communal tensions but also undermined the
possibility of peaceful coexistence in a diverse society. By fostering an environment
of hostility and distrust, these statements could potentially incite further violence
and discrimination against the Muslim community, which is already facing significant
challenges in maintaining its identity and rights within a polarised socio-political
6
the

NBDSA
landscape. Further, the hosts' failure to challenge or moderate these extreme views
reflected a troubling disregard for the responsibility of media figures to promote
dialogue rather than division.
At the 27:00 mark of the show, the hateful conversation culminated in irresponsible
statements and unfounded claims that targeted the Muslim community. These
discussions relied on unresolved theories and propaganda,which can foster fear and
anger among the general public. This was exacerbated by the continuous and
unrestricted airing of provocative, hate-filled theories and stereotypes by all
panellists, under the watchful eye of host SouravSharma.
Participant Ragi gradually presented his divisive views after receiving affirmation
from the host without interruption or stoppage, which contributed to potentially
creating fear and a sense of threat among Hindus regarding Muslim citizens. His
comments appeared intended to disturb the harmonious diversity of our country
and attempted to persuade the Hindus to think about why Muslims are living here.
Throughout the discussion, he openly propagated divisive narratives against
Muslims on national television, and at no point did the host intervene to curb these
statements or prevent the panellist from spreading communal rhetoric.
Ragi attempted to sow doubt and foster a sense of segregation among the majority
population of this country against the Muslim community. In conclusion, host
poseda
question to the panellists: "What is the solution to this? Isstrictnessfrom the police
the remedy? Or should we avoid going into thoseso-called sensitive zones? What is the solution?"
Pradeep Singh responded with a troubling assertion, stating, "The solution is to assert
your power andyour rights. Those who are personally supporting these individuals (Muslims), the
rioters, shouldbe asked whatthey would do iftheir own homes were attacked." This comment
was deeply problematic,as it not only incited fear but also created a dichotomy that
positions Muslims as the perpetual aggressors, further entrenching the narrative of
victimhood among Hindus. By suggesting that support for Muslim communities
equates to siding with violence, Singh aimed to vilify those advocating for
coexistence and mutual respect.
Atthe end of the show, panellist Ragi escalated the inflammatory rhetoric by framing
the situation in terms of a cosmic battle, stating, "In the battle between gods and demons,
who are the godsandwho are the demons?Who is the divine society, and who is the demonicsociety?
Itis necessary to understand the population ofthis country and to be preparedfor it".
This statement was particularly concerning, as it not only dehumanised the Muslim
community but also incited a sense of righteous indignation among Hindus,
implying that they are engaged in a moral fight against an evil adversary. The show,
characterised by its provocative and hate-filled discourse, ultimately contributed to
7

NBDSA
an environment where communal tensions could escalate, posing a significantthreat
to societal cohesion and peace.
What does the show entail?
Rather than fostering constructive dialogue aimed at promoting harmony, the
participants resorted to inflammatory rhetoric that deepened societal divisions based
on religion. Throughout the half-hour segment, discussions surrounding the
Bahraich violence served as a pretext for unjustly implicating the entire Muslim
community in a narrative steeped in suspicion and fear.
The statements made by guest Pradeep Singh, alongside Professor Ragi, reflected a
deeply troubling incitement to civil unrest, posing a significant threat to national
unity and integrity. Singh's assertion that current tensions represented a "direct
preparation for civil war" explicitly incited fear and division, portraying Muslims as
adversaries in an escalating conflict. This rhetoric dangerously implied that Muslims
are the instigators of violence, perpetuating a narrative of victimisation among
Hindus. Ragi's comments further entrench this perilous ideology, suggesting that
the time has come for Hindus to unite against Muslims, thus creating a false
dichotomy that alienates an entire community.
Equally alarmingwas the host's failure to challenge these incendiary remarks. Instead
of guiding the discussion towards peace and understanding,he allowed it to devolve
into a rhetoric that promotes hostility and division. By not intervening, the host
effectively endorsed a narrative that could incite violence and exacerbate communal
tensions.
The participants' comments cultivated an atmosphere rife with stereotypes, casting
Muslims as inherently linked to violence and unrest while neglecting the complex
nature of the issues at hand.
The intentional focus on these themes reveals a concerning agenda aimed at
fostering discord rather than encouraging understanding or resolution. The
discussions lacked a sincere commitment to addressing the underlying causes of
conflict and instead seemed designed to scapegoat a marginalised community. By
dragging the Muslim population into the conversation surrounding the Bahraich
violence, the show trivialised the complexities of societal issues, igniting further
animosity and fear.
The host exacerbated the situation by citing multiple incidents to construct a
sensational narrative, thereby endangering the livelihood and security of the Muslim
community. His reference to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar'swritings distorted their original
intent, suggesting that Muslims exploit Hindu vulnerabilities. The host painted an
8
fue

NBDSA
entire community in a negative light, overlooking the nuanced realities of communal
relations in India.
According to the guidelines of the NBDSA, hosts are expected to maintain neutrality
and avoid favouring one community over another. However, this expectation was
clearly not met. As evidenced by the videos and highlighted statements, both the
host and participants seemed focused on questioning whether Hindus in India
should "open their eyes" to the so-called “agenda of Muslims." As an anchor of a news
channel, that is supposed to uphold a neutral and unbiased theme, the host failed to
introduce any non-communal topics into the debate.
By airing the impugned broadcast, the broadcaster not only violated Fundamental
Principles - 1, 4, 5, 6 and Principles of Self-Regulation concerning Neutrality apart
from the Specific Guidelines Covering Reportage concerning Racial and Religious
Harmony and Specific Guidelines for Anchors conducting Programmes including
Debates.
Reply dated 5.11.2024 from the Broadcaster
1. The show "Coffee Par Kurukshetra" is recorded live,is unscripted, and involves
a discussion between the guests on an important contemporary topic. The
purpose behind the show is to offer viewers an alternative viewpoint on a
particular issue, allowing them to make an informed choice on a topic. The
statements made and views expressed during the show are those of the guests
and the broadcaster does not in any way endorse them.
2.
3.
4.
The complaint pertains to the telecast of the show on 15.10.2024,when the topic
of discussion for the day was the unfortunate incidents and communal tension
in Bahraich.
The show began with a factual recounting of the incident and the aftermath
without any hyperbole or embellishment. The floor was then opened for the
guests to make their respective remarks and express their views. Not a single
statement has been pointed out in the complaint made by the host that is
incendiary, communally charged, or likely to incite violence and disharmony.
Furthermore, every statement made by the host was backed up, either by facts
verified by reliable sources or the views expressed by individuals of great learning.
The recounting of the show in the complaint presents a highly distorted view of
what actually transpired and the context and tone of the show. Several
statements quoted have been cleverly put forth without providing the true
context, in a manner designed to sensationalize the statements completely.
9
fhe

NBDSA
5. The allegation that the host failed to challenge the allegedly incendiary remarks
made by the guests amounts to endorsing them is entirely misconceived. The
show was designed to present to the viewers various viewpoints on a
controversial issue and to openly discuss them. The guests voiced their opinions
based on their knowledge and personal experiences. At no point during the show
did the host endorse or express agreement with any views expressed by a guest.
In fact, on multiple occasions, he asked who was responsible for these repeated
incidents. Not once did the host lay blame for the incidents on any particular
person or community. The host did not pronounce any verdict or proclaim any
person or community as guilty.
6. Unfortunately, the complaint proceeds on a narrow, biased, and single-
dimensional approach to the topic and an erroneous beliefthat the complainant's
view is the only possible one on the topic. At multiple occasions the complainant
has characterized the remarks of the guests as "distorting historical context" or
"false" or "indicative of a broader misinformation campaign” or "deeply flawed"
or "misinterpretation" or "misguided" or "creating a false dichotomy" - and yet,
not once facts, figures or evidence have been offered to contradict these
assertions. The citing of historical facts and past incidents to buttress a point
being made by a guest cannot in any manner be said to create disharmony and
fearmongering.
7. It is absolutely derogatory, disrespectful and defaming to assume and conclude
that the broadcast is anti-Muslim and made an attempt to stir the societal
harmony by attacking Muslims or any particular religion or community in India,
8.
9.
The impugned show is consistent with the broadcaster's right to expression and
freedom of press. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the freedom
of the press forms an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and
expression as granted in Article 19 of the Constitution of India. It has also been
held that the freedom of speech and expression also covers the right to
publication and circulation, through all means.
Not a single provision of the NBDA Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards
("NBDA code") or the Specific Guidelines for Anchors conducting Programmes
including Debates ("anchor guidelines") or the Cable Television Network Rules
("CTN Rules") or the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 is attracted in the present
case.
10. There was no violation offundamental principle 1 inasmuch as no false statement
was made by the host. There was no violation of fundamental principle 4 as the
topic was not selected for either promoting or hindering either side of the issue.
The topic was selected because it was a recent controversy of social significance.
10

NBDSA
11. There was no violation of fundamental principle 5 as the purpose of the show
was to share with the viewers differentviewpoints on the incident. The show did
not call upon the viewers to accept or reject any viewpoint. The freedom to
choose any view is left with the viewer. There was no violation of fundamental
principle 6 given that views were expressed by multiple guests from different
backgrounds. The mere factthat the guests were in agreement regarding some of
the issues discussed does not imply that the controversial topic was not fairly
presented.
12. There was no violation of Regulation 2 ofthe Principles of Self-Regulation given
that multiple guests were invited to express their own views on the topic.
Furthermore, allegations were not portrayed as facts and charges were not
conveyed as guilt. There was no violation of Regulation 9 of the Principles of
Self-Regulation as the host did not make any statement which may denigrate or
is likely to offend the sensitivities of any group.
13. The show did not violate the anchor guidelines. No derogatory statement was
made by the host / anchor about any community. No communally inflammable
statement was made during the news reporting. As there was no debate, no
panelists were present. Even otherwise, no extremist or separatist was invited to
make a comment. Guidelines d and e would in any case be inapplicable as it
applies to guidance to be given to panelists. Guideline f would also not be
applicable given that the news was not a panel discussion or debate. No religion
linked adjectives were uttered by the anchor. No character assassination or
attacks were made in the news reporting at all. Furthermore, no communal
agenda was pushed during the programme. The anchor did not take any side in
the issue, and no personal view or opinion was given. Further, no allegations
were portrayed at facts.
Decision of NBDSA at its meeting held on 13.12.2024
NBDSA considered the complaint, response from the broadcaster,and after viewing
the footage of the broadcasts, decided to call the parties for a hearing.
On being served with the Notice, the following persons were present at the hearing
on 29.05.2025:
Complainant
1. Ms. Tanya Arora
2. Mr. Aman Khan
Broadcaster
1. Mr. Tejveer Singh Bhatia, Advocate
2. Ms. Ritika Talwar, Legal Head & Vice President, HR
11
the

NBDSA
Submissions of the Complainant
The complainant recounted the events that occurred in Bahraich leading up to the
impugned broadcast, which was aired on October 15, two days after the incident of
communal violence had transpired in Bahraich. Their grievance was with the use of
aggressive visuals, high-pitched music,and loaded language like 'civil war by Muslims,
'extremist Muslims,' 'threats,' "conspiracy, and 'stone pelter army,'which term was used by
the anchor at the beginning of the impugned broadcast itself. It is important to note
that at the time the impugned broadcast was aired, no investigation or police
statement had been released regarding the incidents of violence in Bahraich.
However, in the broadcast, the panellists referred to this event to draw historical
parallels with partition, to suggest that partition was imposed on Hindus because of
Muslims. Additionally, other communal riots were also mentioned. Further, in the
broadcast distorted references were made to the Azaan, and a question was raised
about why Hindus should tolerate the Azaan when Muslims complain about
loudspeakers during Hindu festivals. There was also discussion about how the
religious practice of the Azaan conflicts with Hindu deities and Hindus. It is
reiterated that, although no investigation had taken place, Mr. Ram Gopal Mishra,
who was killed in the communal violence in Bahraich, was portrayed as a martyr.
Additionally, this incident was depicted as an attack on Hindus and Hindu festivals,
suggesting a conspiracу.
Throughout the broadcast, the Muslim community was demonized. A parallel was
also drawn with the murder of Kanhaiyalal. These incidents were used to endorse
the rhetoric about how Hindus should also come out in the streets with sticks.
At the 6-minute mark in the broadcast, reference was made to the rise in the Muslim
population, which was alluded to as a threat to the Hindus. Statements made by
Mahatma Gandhi, BR Ambedkar, and Acharya were distorted during the broadcast
to suggest that these individuals were also aware that Muslims were a threat to India
and Indiancivilization. There were also references to Muslim areas in the broadcast
and it was implied that one could not enter such areas.
There was no Muslim voice or counter voice which was present and the discussion
in the broadcast was on one narrative oly. The host did not try to counter this
narrative. The events that transpired in the Bahraichwere presented in a manner that
Hindus were attacked and unverified rumours were presented as facts and not as
allegations.
A divisive "us versus them" narrative was constructed and past incidents were cited
to justify calls for Hindus to awaken and take to the streets.
The host himself claimed that the alleged rioters had guns and stones ready, and no
neutrality was maintained in the broadcast. By constructing a one-sided, communal
12

NBDSA
narrative around the Bahraich violence, the anchor prioritised sensationalism over
truth, thereby abdicating his responsibility to uphold ethical journalism and fuelling
further division and mistrust.
Submissions of the Broadcaster
The broadcaster submitted that, admittedly, during the impugned broadcast,
reference was made to quotes in the books of Mahatma Gandhi and B.R. Ambedkar,
and other books; however, in the complaint, the complainant has failed to identify
what was misquoted. The statements made by the panellists were from the books.
In any event, the statements made and views expressed on the show were those of
the guests and the channel did not in any way endorse them. The show's format is a
discussion. It submitted that presenting diverse viewpoints, even if controversial, is
essential for informing the public and upholding freedom of speech. The
complainant has presented certain parts of the program out of context, creating a
false impression. Statements have been selectively quoted and decontextualized to
paintanegative picture. The impugned show ought to be considered in its entirety
to understand the true intent and context of the guests' remarks.
The impugned broadcast was a discussion about an incident that took place in
Bahraich, where a Durga Puja procession was attacked in front of a mosque. As a
result, some Hindus became aggravated and retaliated. During this event, one
person, Mr. Gopal Verma, was shot five times. This incident was being discussed in
the broadcast, where diverse panellists were invited to express their views. In such
programmes, only the topic of the discussion is given to the panellists; how they
choose to develop it is left to their discretion. The anchor intervenes wherever
necessary to check the panellists. For instance, in the impugned broadcast, the
anchor questioned Ram Gopal Verma's actions, wherein he climbed a house,
removed the green flag,and replaced it with a saffron flag. However, he also asked
whether Mr. Verma's actions condoned killing him.
It shouldn't be the case that when individuals from a particular community do
something wrong, no one is allowed to speak out. As far as the murder of Kanhaiya
Lal was concerned, the only question raised was whether allthe Hindus should come
out on the roads, simply because of the incident. It was only in this context that
reference was made to Kanhaiya Lal. It was clearly stated that there must be some
law and some equivalence.
One of the panellists had raised the question of where the stones came from and
who supplied them. Since there was an incident of stone pelting,a parallel was drawn
to the incidents in Kashmir and in Shaheen Bagh. It had been reported by both the
police and by media reports that during the incident in Shaheen Bagh, bottles of
13
Au

NBDSA
stones and acid were kept on the terrace. It had merely shown visuals of the event
that had transpired.
That, admittedly, the event had taken place, therefore, there could be no injunction
against the media discussing such an event. It clarified that terms such as stone pelter
were used only by the panellists.
In rejoinder, the complainant submitted that the broadcaster had not merely
reported the Bahraich incident. Had the panellists advocated against communal
violence, no objection could have been raised. However,in the impugned broadcast,
inflammatory statements were made.
Decision
NBDSA considered the complaint, gave due consideration to the arguments of the
complainant and the broadcaster and reviewed the footage of the broadcast.
The Authority found that a particular theme was chosen and thereafter only those
persons who have strong views in support of that theme were invited to express
their views. The broadcaster did not include the speakers who could express other
side of the picture, and thus the discussion was not balanced and was one-sided.
This is clear violation of principle of neutrality under the Code of Conduct. The
broadcaster is advised to have such discussions in the programmes keeping in mind
the principles of neutrality.
NBDSA further also directed the broadcaster to remove the videos ofthe impugned
broadcasts, if still available from the website of the channel, or YouTube, and
remove all hyperlinks, including access, which should be confirmed to NBDSA in
writing within 7 days of the Order.
NBDSA decided to close the complaint with the above observations and inform the
complainant and the broadcaster accordingly.
NBDSA directs NBDA to send:
(a) A copy of this Order to the complainant and the broadcaster;
(b) Circulate this Order to all Members, Editors & Legal Heads of NBDA;
(c) Host this Order on its website and include it in its next Annual Report and
(d) Release the Order to media.
It is clarified that any statement made by the parties in the proceedings before
NBDSA while responding to the complaint and putting forth their view points, and
any finding or observation by NBDSA in regard to the broadcasts, in its proceedings
or in this Order, are only in the context of an examination as to whether there are
14
Aue

NBDSA
any violations of any broadcasting standards and guidelines. They are not intended
to be 'admissions' by the broadcaster, nor intended to be 'findings' by NBDSA in
regard to any civil/criminal liability.
feon
Justice A.K Sikri (Retd.)
Chairperson
Place: New Delhi
Date: 25.09.2025
15

NBDSA 1.pdfbalance, and harmony without doubt

More Related Content

Similar to NBDSA 1.pdfbalance, and harmony without doubt

More from sabranghindi

Recently uploaded

NBDSA 1.pdfbalance, and harmony without doubt