Back
NBDSA Fines ₹2 Lakh for Inflammatory Coverage of AMU Palestine Slogans
The , chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice A.K. Sikri (Retd.), has imposed a fine of ₹2 lakh on for its coverage of Palestine solidarity slogans raised during a student protest at . The Authority held that the broadcaster’s portrayal of the event violated the under the . In addition to the monetary penalty, NBDSA directed to remove the impugned footage from its website, YouTube, and all other channel platforms, including any hyperlinks providing access to the broadcasts.
The order, passed on , stems from a complaint filed by Talha Mannan, a Ph.D. research scholar at and an alumnus of AMU. Mannan had delivered an approximately 18-minute speech during a peaceful student protest held on , against a fee hike and in support of restoring the Students' Union. He alleged that subsequently aired selective 10- to 15-second footage of slogans raised during the protest, portraying lawful expressions of solidarity with Palestine as criminal or anti-national conduct.
Background: The Protest and Selective Broadcast
The protest at AMU was primarily focused on two demands: a reversal of the fee hike and the restoration of the Students' Union. During the demonstration, participants also raised slogans expressing solidarity with Palestine—a common expression of support seen on many Indian campuses. Mannan’s speech addressed both the fee issue and broader concerns, but ’ coverage, according to the complaint, zeroed in on the Palestine slogans while ignoring the core grievance.
The programmes in question, aired on , included “Deshhit: AMU में 'फिलिस्तीन प्रेमी गैंग'.. 'योगी स्टाइल' में होगा इलाज!” and “DNA: फीस माफी वाले आंदोलन में फिलिस्तीन जिंदाबाद कहाँ से आ गया? Aligarh Muslim University.” The NBDSA observed that the on-screen tickers—such as “AMU में फिलिस्तीन प्रेमी गैंग” (Palestine lover gang in AMU) and “योगी स्टाइल में होगा इलाज” (will be treated in Yogi style)—gave the event an inflammatory twist. The Authority noted that the coverage appeared to advocate criminal action rather than , thereby violating the fundamental principles of .
NBDSA’s Findings: Omission of Context and
In its detailed order, the NBDSA found that had omitted the principal purpose of the agitation—the fee hike—and instead focused exclusively on the Palestine solidarity slogans, creating a misleading impression that the protest itself concerned the Palestinian war. The Authority stated: “Consequently, NBDSA decided to levy a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs on the broadcaster.” The order further condoned the delays in filing the complaint at both levels of redressal, noting that the complainant had acted diligently and that the delay at the second level was not directly attributable to him.
The Authority emphasized that while broadcasters have the right to report on matters of , they must do so without or . The selective editing of the footage and the used in the tickers crossed the line into , which the explicitly prohibits. By portraying the protesters as a “gang” and suggesting “Yogi-style” treatment—a reference to the tough stance of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath—the broadcaster risked inflaming communal tensions and undermining public order.
Legal Implications for Broadcasters
This ruling serves as a significant reminder for news channels about the limits of . The NBDSA’s decision reinforces that the requires broadcasters to present news in a manner that is accurate, impartial, and not likely to incite violence or hatred. The fine, though relatively modest, carries a strong message: even editorial choices in tickers and selective clips can attract regulatory action.
Legal experts note that the NBDSA’s powers under the allow it to impose penalties for violations ranging from minor infractions to serious breaches of the code. The Authority’s focus on the omission of context highlights a growing expectation that news coverage must provide a complete picture, especially when reporting on protests or sensitive social issues. For media houses, this means that any editing that distorts the original message could be deemed a violation, even if the underlying event is newsworthy.
Impact on Media Practice and the Justice System
The order is likely to have a chilling effect on how broadcasters cover student protests and Palestine solidarity movements. In recent years, such expressions have often been labeled as anti-national by certain sections of the media, leading to public backlash and legal scrutiny. The NBDSA’s ruling draws a clear line between legitimate reporting and inflammatory commentary. It also underscores the importance of the and , as long as these rights are exercised within the bounds of law.
From a procedural perspective, the Authority’s willingness to condone the delay in filing the complaint indicates a flexible approach to ensuring that genuine grievances are addressed. This could encourage more complainants to approach the NBDSA even if there is a slight delay, provided they can show diligence.
Conclusion
The NBDSA’s fine on is a landmark decision in Indian media regulation. It reaffirms that broadcasters cannot sacrifice for ratings or political messaging. By ordering the removal of the impugned footage and imposing a financial penalty, the Authority has sent a strong signal that inflammatory coverage will not be tolerated. For legal professionals, this case provides a clear precedent on the application of the to and . As media landscapes evolve, such regulatory actions will play a crucial role in balancing freedom of the press with the need for responsible journalism.
