Back
to Decide Shehla Rashid's Apology Plea Against on Nov 26
The on Tuesday announced that it will deliver its final verdict on regarding activist and former JNU student leader Shehla Rashid's plea seeking an unambiguous apology from and its former anchor Sudhir Chaudhary. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, noting that the pleadings were complete, directed the respondents—including the , , and Chaudhary—to file written submissions before the next hearing.
The case stems from a broadcast aired on , in which Rashid's estranged father was interviewed and made serious allegations against her, her sister, and her mother, including claims that she was involved in funding terror. Rashid lodged a complaint with the NBDSA, which in found that the broadcast lacked objectivity, impartiality, and presented only one side of the story. The authority directed to remove the video from its website, YouTube, and all other links. However, it refused to order the broadcaster to issue an apology—a relief that Rashid now seeks from the High Court.
A One-Sided Narrative
The impugned broadcast, part of
's prime-time programming, featured an interview with Rashid's father, who made sweeping allegations without any attempt to present Rashid's version of events. In its
order, the NBDSA observed that by allowing the interviewee
"to vent and air his allegations against her, the channel had presented only one side of the story."
The authority concluded that the broadcast caused
towards Rashid and directed the removal of the content from all platforms.
Despite this, the NBDSA declined to mandate an apology, a remedy it has granted in other similarly situated cases. Rashid, through her plea, argues that this refusal was
"wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law."
She contends that merely taking down the videos does not undo the damage to her reputation, as the content continues to circulate and has already been viewed by thousands. According to her petition, the videos
"have been viewed by several people and has till date received more than 3800 reactions and has been shared by more than 500 people and continues to gather more views."
The plea emphasizes that
"merely taking down the videos will unfortunately not affect the impact that the broadcast had on the public nor remotely restore the dignity and reputation of the Petitioner."
The Quest for an Apology
Rashid's petition seeks modification of the NBDSA's order to the extent that
and Chaudhary be directed to issue an "
" to her, and to broadcast it during prime time to mitigate the damage. She argues that the NBDSA, as a
, failed in its
by not providing a reasoned explanation for withholding the apology. The plea states:
"The public functions performed by the press & media are recognized by the State which, consequently, accords various rights & privileges to them, one of which was the right of
of news channels by Respondent No. 1 of which Respondent No. 2-4 are parts of. The power of
was to maintain credibility of news media by ensuring that there were no Government shackles in performing its functions as the fourth pillar of democracy."
Rashid's counsel argued before the court that
"in today's situation when these kinds of allegations are made, it is important that there is a sense of responsibility of the media and people who make these allegations."
The NBDSA's counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the broadcaster had already removed all links to the programme from all platforms, suggesting that the relief granted was sufficient.
Legal Arguments and
The case raises critical questions about the scope of in Indian media and the adequacy of remedies for . The NBDSA is a established by the to adjudicate complaints against news channels. Its powers include directing the removal of content, issuing advisories, and, in appropriate cases, ordering apologies. However, in this instance, the authority chose not to exercise the latter power, without providing any reasoning.
Rashid's plea argues that such an "" violates her under . She contends that the broadcast, which imputed involvement in terror funding, has caused "manifest" damage to her reputation, and that an apology is essential to restore her dignity. The petition also highlights that the NBDSA has issued apologies in other cases, and that its failure to do so here amounts to .
For the legal community, this case underscores the tension between media freedom and the . The 's decision will test whether self-regulatory bodies can be compelled to provide specific remedies, or whether the judiciary will defer to their discretion. If the court orders an apology, it could set a precedent that broadcasters must take active steps to repair reputational harm, not merely remove offending content.
Impact on Media Accountability
The outcome of this plea will have significant implications for media law and practice in India. Journalists and news organizations will be watching closely to see whether the court expands the remedies available to victims of . A ruling in favor of Rashid could encourage more individuals to seek apologies through judicial intervention, particularly when self-regulatory bodies decline to act.
Moreover, the case highlights the evolving role of the NBDSA and similar bodies. While is intended to avoid government overreach, it must also ensure that complainants receive effective relief. The High Court's scrutiny of the NBDSA's reasoning—or lack thereof—may prompt the authority to develop clearer guidelines on when apologies should be mandated.
For legal practitioners, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of documenting harm caused by defamatory content. Rashid's plea meticulously quantifies the reach of the broadcast—over 3,800 reactions and 500 shares—to demonstrate that removal alone is insufficient. This approach may be replicated in future .
What Lies Ahead
The final hearing on will see the court consider written submissions from all parties. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has already noted that the pleadings are complete, indicating that a decision is imminent. The court will weigh the NBDSA's order against Rashid's claim that an apology is the only remedy that can mitigate the damage to her reputation.
As the date approaches, the case has already reignited debates about media responsibility and the boundaries of . For Shehla Rashid, the battle is not just about personal vindication but about holding powerful media entities accountable for biased reporting. For the news industry, it is a reminder that the "fourth pillar of democracy" must operate with fairness and balance, or face judicial correction.
The 's verdict on will be a landmark moment in Indian media law, shaping how against broadcasters are resolved in the future. Legal professionals across the country will be awaiting the judgment with keen interest.
