NBDSA cautions Times Now Navbharat to avoid presumptions in sensitive religious reporting for broadcast on “Madrasas Teachings” Underscores the need for restraint and verification while reporting on communally sensitive issues, flags anchor’s narrative framing
11, Jun 2025 | CJP Team
In a significant order upholding media accountability and reinforcing ethical standards in reportage on sensitive issues, the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) has cautioned Times Now Navbharat for airing two primetime episodes on August 19, 2024, which, according to the Authority, violated principles of neutrality, communal sensitivity, and responsible journalism. The order was passed on June 9, 2025, in response to a complaint filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) in September 2024.
The Authority found that while both sides of the issue were presented in the broadcast — including denials by Madrasa authorities and a detailed interview with NCPCR Chairperson Priyank Kanoongo — the anchor failed to exercise necessary caution, particularly in a situation involving conflicting claims and sensitive subject matter. The Authority issued important observations and guidance, emphasising the need for responsible anchoring, verification of claims, and avoidance of presumptive or potentially polarizing narratives in future broadcasts.
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!
Background of the complaint
On August 19, 2024, Times Now Navbharat aired two related segments in its flagship evening programme:
Programme 1: “Sankalp Rashtra Nirman Ka: कराची का लिटरेचर..भारत के मदरसों में क्या कर रहा ? | Hindi News”
Programme 2: “Rashtravad: भारत का मदरसा…पाकिस्तान का सिलेबस? | Priyank Kanoongo | Bihar Madarsa | Hindi News”
Both the shows are based on the statement made by Chairperson of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, Priyank Kanoongo, who had alleged that the government-funded madrassas in Bihar are teaching from so-called “Radical-curriculum” and using “Pakistan-Published books”.
Based on the above statement, both shows propagated allegedly harmful ideas through a distorted portrayal of madrasa education, emphasizing sensationalism over balanced reporting. The “Sankalp Rashtra Nirman Ka” show and the “Rashtravad” debate show both relied heavily on inflammatory language and selective framing, painting madrassas as centres of radicalism and anti-national sentiment. The use of provocative questions and visual imagery aimed to generate fear and suspicion among viewers.
In view of the same, CJP filed a complaint with the NBDSA on September 26, 2024, alleging that the programs:
- Used provocative, communal, and stigmatising language.
- Presented unverified and one-sided narratives.
- Violated the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards and Specific Guidelines Covering Reportage, especially clauses relating to accuracy, neutrality, communal harmony, and the prohibition on fear-mongering.
Details of the complaint may be read here.
CJP’s contentions
CJP’s detailed submissions alleged that:
- The programs vilified Madrasas as a whole, implying they were inherently suspicious or linked to terrorism.
- The headlines and taglines like “Jihadi Sanskriti” are not only highly inflammatory, but also lacked any evidentiary basis.
- The selective use of visuals, interviews, and graphics sensationalised the topic and created an atmosphere of fear and distrust toward the Muslim community.
- The broadcaster failed to present the views of those running Madrasas, denying them a fair opportunity to respond, which violated the principle of balanced reportage.
CJP argued that such content endangered social harmony, contributed to religious polarization, and had a real-world impact, particularly on the already marginalized Muslim minority in Bihar and across the country.
Broadcaster’s response
Times Now Navbharat submitted that:
- The programming was based on ground-level reporting, including testimonies of teachers and students.
- The subject was of legitimate public interest, especially in light of reported links between radicalisation and certain educational institutions.
- The channel did not target any religion or community, and the intention was not to generalize all Madrasas but to expose certain problematic instances.
The broadcaster also claimed that the programs adhered to the tenets of free speech and journalistic inquiry, and that no direct allegations were made without basis.
NBDSA’s findings and reasoning
After considering the submissions of both parties and reviewing the footage, the NBDSA noted that the broadcaster had included views from both the NCPCR Chairperson and the Bihar Madrasa authorities-
- Priyank Kanoongo was given space to express his concerns regarding the textbook “Talimul Islam”.
- Abdul Salam Ansari, Deputy Director of the Bihar State Madrasa Board, as well as a teacher and students at a Madrasa in Patna, were interviewed and categorically denied that the textbook was part of their curriculum.
NBDSA held that had the broadcast been confined to these interviews and objective presentation, no objection could have been sustained, as the principles of impartiality, neutrality, and objectivity were adhered to in that part.
However, the issue arose with the conduct and framing by the anchor, who, in NBDSA’s view, failed to exercise due caution:
- Despite conflicting claims between NCPCR and the Bihar Madrasa authorities, the anchor proceeded on the presumption that Kanoongo’s version was correct, thereby shaping the program around that assumption.
- The NBDSA stressed that in the presence of such a serious allegation, especially involving potential hate teaching in religious institutions, the anchor had a duty to verify the claims further or maintain a neutral stance.
The Authority pointed out that Mr. Abdul Salam Ansari, like Mr. Kanoongo, is a responsible public authority, and the lack of further verification before drawing conclusions was inappropriate.
“However, the objection is with the questions raised by the anchors during the broadcasts. No doubt, Mr. Fri.yank Kanoongo had claimed that the contents of a certain textbook “Talimul Islam” was taught in Madrasas in Bihar. Again, no doubt, he is a responsible person being the Chairman, CPCR. At the same time, the anchor should have also kept in mind that the Deputy Director, Bihar State Madrasa Board as well as the teacher and students interviewed had denounced that the textbook was indeed being taught and had refused to comment on the same without receiving any information/ representation in this regard. In such a scenario, the anchor should have been little careful before proceeding with the presumption that all this was in fact happening. Even the Deputy Director, Bihar State Madrasa Board is also a responsible person and in view of conflicting claims, there should have been some verification by the anchor before accepting the version of one person and adopting a narrative in the programme on that premise,” the NBDSA observed in its order.
The Authority also made a broader constitutional observation, stating that if any educational institution teaches hatred or demeans other religions, such teaching would be clearly contrary to constitutional ethos and must be denounced. However, it emphasized that before such a conclusion is broadcast publicly, it must be verified with due diligence.
“It is reemphasized that in this secular country governed by the Constitution of India, such kind of teachings have to be denounced. However, it is equally important to verify that in fact there were teachings in certain Madrasas in Bihar of that nature.”
“In view of the aforesaid, NBDSA is of the opinion that the anchor should be more cautious in broadcasting such programmes which have, otherwise, tendency to create the feeling of hatred towards a particular community and broadcasting of these programmes should not be without proper verifications of the contents.”
Final decision
The NBDSA decided to close the complaint but concluded with a strong advisory observation:
- Anchors must be more cautious while hosting and framing programs that deal with religious or communal issues, especially where claims remain unverified or contested.
- Broadcasters should avoid presumptive narratives that could create feelings of hatred towards any community.
.The NBDSA’s order walks a nuanced line — while not indicting the broadcaster for the program as a whole, it takes issue with editorial judgment exercised during the broadcast, particularly by the anchor. It reaffirms the role of media in upholding constitutional values and avoiding communal polarization, especially in a context where both official and institutional versions of events were in direct conflict.
The decision sends a message that in a pluralist democracy like India, the journalistic duty to verify and maintain neutrality is not just ethical—it is constitutional.
The complete order may be read below.
Related:
CJP’s Landmark Victory Against Hate in Media | Times Now Navbharat Pulled Up by NBDSA
Championing Justice: CJP’s Guide to Filing NBDSA Complaints
NBDSA orders mainstream news channels to remove shows, fines imposed
