In a decision that underscores the responsibility of television news to uphold constitutional values and journalistic ethics, the News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) has delivered a strongly worded order against India TV for its October 15, 2024 broadcast of “Coffee Par Kurukshetra”. The order, passed on September 25, came in response to a meticulously argued complaint filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP).
This is not only a vindication of CJP’s relentless media watchdog efforts but also an institutional acknowledgment that prime-time news debates can fuel communal hatred when stripped of neutrality and balance.
CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots propagating these venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice. To learn more about our campaign against hate speech, please become a member. To support our initiatives, please donate now!
The Spark: Bahraich Violence and its media afterlife
The case traces back to events of October 13, 2024, when communal violence erupted in Bahraich’s Maharajganj area during a Durga Puja immersion procession. Loud music played near a mosque led to clashes, gunfire, and the death of 22-year-old Ram Gopal Mishra, sparking retaliatory violence across the area. Shops, homes, hospitals, and vehicles were vandalised or set ablaze.
Just two days later, India TV aired Coffee Par Kurukshetra, ostensibly to discuss the incident. But instead of sober reportage, the show sensationalised the tragedy, demonised Muslims, and presented the violence as part of a larger “civil war” allegedly being prepared by Muslims against Hindus.
The episode was hosted by Sourav Sharma, with panellists including Professor Sangeet Ragi, Pradeep Singh, and Shantanu Gupta — all of whom used the platform to make sweeping, inflammatory claims against Muslims.
The complete complaint may be read here.
The Complaint
On October 21, 2024, CJP filed a complaint, later escalated on November 6, 2024, underlining the show’s dangerous narrative and violation of broadcasting standards.
CJP pointed to several troubling aspects:
- Loaded language and visuals: The anchor introduced the show with terms like “stone-pelter army”, “extremist Muslims”, “civil war” and “conspiracy”. Aggressive visuals and background music heightened the fear-driven narrative.
- Vilification of Muslims: The broadcast portrayed Muslims as perpetual aggressors and “outsiders,” even invoking Partition to argue Hindus had historically suffered because of Muslims.
- Misuse of religious practices: The Azaan was singled out as disruptive; panellists questioned why Hindus should tolerate it. Muslim festivals were painted as threats to Hindu ways of life.
- Distortions of historical figures: Gandhi and Ambedkar’s words were misquoted or wrenched out of context to argue that they too had warned against Muslims.
- No counter-voices: No Muslim speakers or neutral voices were invited. The discussion was entirely one-sided, with the host tacitly endorsing the communal tone.
- Dangerous calls to action: Guests openly suggested Hindus should “come out with sticks” to defend themselves, with rhetoric escalating to cosmic metaphors of “gods versus demons.”
CJP stressed that airing such a programme without any verified police investigation or neutral reporting amounted to spreading disinformation, promoting hostility, and abandoning journalistic neutrality.
The Broadcaster’s Defence: Freedom of press or abdication of duty?
India TV, in its reply dated November 5, 2024, defended the programme by arguing:
- The show was live, unscripted, and based on free debate; responsibility lay with guests, not the broadcaster.
- The channel did not endorse guest views, which were “diverse perspectives.”
- Freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a) protected the airing of controversial opinions.
- CJP’s complaint had “selectively quoted” panellists and distorted context.
India TV insisted the host had asked probing questions — such as whether Ram Gopal’s removal of a flag justified his killing — and claimed that presenting historical parallels and references to riots was legitimate.
The Hearing: CJP vs. India TV
The matter was heard by NBDSA on May 29, 2025. CJP reiterated that the show, aired at a time when no official police findings were available, had irresponsibly created an “us vs. them” dichotomy, depicted Muslims as violent conspirators, and stripped the broadcast of neutrality.
The broadcaster doubled down, arguing that controversial views cannot be censored in a democracy, and the complainant had failed to show factual misquotations.
NBDSA’s Findings: A one-sided, communal narrative
After reviewing the broadcast and submissions, NBDSA made several critical findings:
- Deliberate theme and panel selection
-
- The broadcaster had pre-selected a divisive theme and only invited speakers supporting that narrative.
- No dissenting or balancing voices were included, making the debate fundamentally biased.
The order noted “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.”
2. Violation of neutrality
-
- Anchors are obliged to moderate and prevent communal provocation.
The order noted “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.”
The Order: Strong directions against India TV
NBDSA’s order issued the following directions:
- Content removal: India TV must delete the impugned broadcast from its website, YouTube channel, and all online links. Written confirmation of compliance must be submitted within 7 days.
- Institutional circulation: The order will be circulated among all NBDA members, Editors, and Legal Heads.
- Public record: The order will be hosted on NBDSA’s website, included in its Annual Report, and released to the media.
The Authority clarified that while its findings apply to broadcasting standards, they do not determine civil or criminal liability — keeping the scope strictly within media regulation.
The order noted that “NBDSA further also directed the broadcaster to remove the videos of the 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 copy of this Order to the complainant and the broadcaster;
- Circulate this Order to all Members, Editors & Legal Heads of NBDA;
- Host this Order on its website and include it in its next Annual Report and
- Release the Order to media.”
Why this is a victory
The importance of this order lies in:
- Explicit recognition of one-sided narratives: The order highlights how “debates” can be structured to push communal agendas by excluding balancing voices.
- Anchor accountability: By holding the host responsible for failing to intervene, the NBDSA sets a precedent that anchors cannot hide behind guest opinions.
- Content removal, not just warning: The directive to remove all online traces of the show is stronger than usual, signalling zero tolerance for such broadcasts.
- Validation of civil society monitoring: CJP’s meticulous monitoring, complaint drafting, and legal follow-through stand vindicated, showcasing the role of civil society in holding powerful broadcasters to account.
Conclusion
The NBDSA’s decision reaffirms that freedom of the press cannot be a licence to vilify minorities or erode communal harmony.
For CJP, this win represents the power of consistent vigilance, evidence-based complaints, and commitment to secular values. At a time when hate speech in mainstream media is often normalised, this order proves that institutions can still deliver accountability when pushed with precision and persistence.
This is, without doubt, a small but vital step towards reclaiming media as a forum for truth, balance, and harmony — not hate.
The complete order may be read here.
Image Courtesy: jiotv.com
Related:
Assam BJP’s AI video a manufactured dystopia, Congress files complaint, myths exposed
The Cost of Clicks: how thumbnails encourage misleading and hate news consumption
Broadcasting Bias: CJP’s fight against hatred in Indian news