Sakina Tashrifwala
Published on: September 17, 2022 at 20:01 IST
The Delhi High Court gave notice on Friday regarding a petition filed by JNU Scholar Shehla Rashid asking Zee News and its then-anchor Sudhir Chaudhary for a clear-cut apology regarding a programme the news channel aired in November 2020.
To the extent that the News Broadcasters and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) declined to order the broadcaster to air an apology while ruling that the show lacked objectivity, impartiality, and had presented only “one side of the story,” Shehla Rashid has requested modification of the order.
The order was issued on March 31, 2022.
On February 23, 2023, Justice Yashwant Varma scheduled the case for hearing and requested responses from NBDSA, Zee News, and Sudhir Chaudhary within a six-week time frame.
According to the contested ruling, NBDSA had instructed Zee News to take down the contested broadcast’s footage from their website, YouTube, and all other links.
Shehla Rashid complained to the NBDSA about a programme that was broadcast on November 30, 2020, at 11 p.m., and in which her biological father was interviewed and made outrageous accusations against her, her sister, and her mother.
Shehla Rashid was said to have contributed to sponsoring terrorism. It was further claimed that the presenter had stated that Shehla was engaged in anti-national acts like sponsoring terrorism.
In a ruling dated March 31, NBDSA declared that the channel had only given one side of the issue by allowing the interviewee—the complainant’s father, Shehla Rashid—to vent and express his accusations against the complainant.
In the course of today’s hearing, the attorney representing Shehla Rashid argued that since the authority determined that the broadcaster’s statements were against ethics and standards, it was essential for it to run an apology for broadcasting the disputed programme.
“In today’s situation when these kind of allegations are made, it is important that there is a sense of responsibility of media and people who make these allegations,” the counsel added.
The broadcaster has erased all links to the questioned show from all platforms, according to the NBDSA attorney who was present at the hearing. Shehla Rashid’s attorney, however, claimed that he was under orders to claim that the programme had not been taken down from the Facebook (now Meta) platform.
The broadcaster’s representative in court was asked by the court if it would be ready to publish a line of apology on its platform, but the representative declined.
As a result, the Court gave notice of the plea while making it clear that it was not yet making a final decision.
Shehla Rashid argues in her petition that an unjustified denial of an apology to her is completely arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
“The public functions performed by the press & media are recognised by the State which, consequently, accords various rights & privileges to them, one of which was the right of self- regulation of news channels by Respondent No. 1 of which Respondent No. 2-4 are parts of.”
“The power of self-regulation 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,” the plea reads.
It adds, “The videos existing at present 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.”
“Thus, 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 which was damaged by the broadcast.”
“Thus, an apology from the Respondent No.3-4 is essential to mitigate the damage caused to reputation of the Petitioner, which is manifestly caused by the violation of the public duty assumed by the Respondents.”
