5 years, 416 complaints, just 12 fines: The mute button of Indian news TV’s first self-regulator

By September this year, the News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority had received 26 complaints against some of India’s biggest news channels for broadcasts that encouraged superstition, promoted communal narratives, or targeted minorities. 

Set up as a self-regulatory mechanism for the television news industry, the authority found clear violations of its Code of Ethics in nine of these cases. It found that channels had linked madrassas to terrorism, portrayed Muslims as “unhygienic”, spread “thook jihad” theories, and aired debates urging voters to think along communal lines.

Yet none of the channels were fined. There were eight takedown orders, a direction to edit a video, and in the remaining matters, merely a reminder of the code they had violated. Even for repeat offenders. 

This restraint is striking given the powers the NBDSA technically wields. Under its own guidelines, the authority can levy fines – of up to Rs 25 lakh – for repeated violations, to suspend programmes for a week, and even take anchors off air for up to a month. It can order content takedowns and mandate on-air apologies. These provisions were designed to give the self-regulatory body real teeth – a way for the industry to police itself and stave off government regulation. But at a time when Indian news television has descended into partisan theatrics, communal framing, and nightly trials by studio, the watchdog has rarely mustered the will to respond.

A Newslaundry analysis of 416 complaints filed against member channels since 2019 suggests that the NBDSA has effectively stepped back from its role.

A break-up of the 416 complaints filed before NBDSA since 2019.

The authority found just 128 cases of violations of its code while it gave a clean-chit to the publisher in 125 cases. In 117 matters, it made no decision against the channel other than recirculating its guidelines, similar to the two complaints where it found a violation but failed to act against the media outfit. In 44 remaining complaints, the matters were dismissed citing various reasons.

Even of the 128 cases where it found violations of its own code, it ordered takedowns in less than a third of them (40 cases). It asked for on-air apologies in just five cases, fines in 12, and asked channels to broadcast its orders in 9. In the remaining instances, it merely issued warnings. The median fine, when imposed at all, was Rs 50,000 and the highest at Rs 1 lakh – a sum one former authority member dismissed as meaningless: “Rs 1 lakh means nothing to them (channels).”

Worse, there is no way to know if channels even complied with these mild directives – the website or annual reports do not detail compliance. Until 2020, the authority would ask broadcasters to submit recordings of programmes to verify compliance. That practice has stopped, and a year later, it changed to only informing the authority about the compliance within seven days of passing the order. 

Over the years, while the NBDSA’s relevance as an accountability mechanism has steadily declined, its parent body — the News Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA) — appears to be focussed on government ad revenue. 

An analysis of the NBDA’s annual reports suggests that the association has spent a significant time negotiating with the government for higher advertisement rates. 

In a response to Newslaundry, the NBDA insisted that the election of its office-bearers is “conducted strictly in accordance with the company’s bye-laws”. In 10 elections since 2014, the body has chosen India TV chairman Rajat Sharma as its president nine times. During the UPA years, the NBDA was largely led by then NDTV CEO KVL Narayan Rao, except for one stint by then IBN18 Broadcast Limited’s joint managing director Sameer Manchanda. 

The Arnab paradox and a new federation

The role of an independent, credible self-regulatory body becomes even more crucial considering India’s transformed media landscape. Watchdogs like Reporters Without Borders have documented this, ranking the country 159th out of 180 in press freedom in its latest index, with TV news singled out for its “orchestrated propaganda” and “vilification of minorities”. 

In the run-up to 2024 Lok Sabha elections, a Newslaundry analysis of prime time shows had found that 5.6 percent of all prime-time debate topics on prominent news channels were communal in nature, while 52 percent were anti-opposition and and 27 percent were pro-Narendra Modi. This has been part of a pattern. In 2023, a Lokniti-CSDS survey found that 61 percent of regular TV news viewers believed Muslims receive “special treatment” from political parties — an opinion researchers linked directly to media narratives rather than lived experience. 

There’s an irony difficult to miss about the NBDA’s transformation in the wake of this shift. Of the man who drafted the NBDSA’s Code of Ethics later becoming one of its violators and eventually exiting the NBDA to lead a rival broadcast association, known as the National Broadcasters Federation.

Arnab Goswami was the editor-in-chief of Times Now when he was chosen to draft the NBDSA’s code. His tone used to be markedly different then as compared to the voice he is now as chief of Republic TV. For example, as bodies piled up in Mumbai amid the 26/11 attacks, his Times Now show hosted prominent Mumbai citizens who rallied against India’s “callous” political class. Goswami did not communalise the moment, unlike his Republic TV persona.

A former managing editor of a Hindi channel told Newslaundry that Goswami was chosen to draft the NBDSA’s code as “at that time, he was a phenomenal editor and had a great spine. Every time the UPA government would try to put pressure on promoters of television channels, he would get angry and discuss with editors of channels." 

Ten years later, in 2017, when Goswami founded Republic TV, his company ARG Outlier Media Private Limited became a board member of the NBDA, and thus came under the jurisdiction of the NBDSA. But two sources claimed he left the authority as complaints began to pile up against his channel. 

In 2017, he was directed to issue apologies in two separate cases. 

The first case arose from Republic’s coverage of a rally, aired under the caption “Jignesh Flop Show”. In the broadcast, the complainant's face was highlighted with a ring of red dots while Goswami described him as a “vulgar thug,” “pervert,” “goon,” “sexist,” “hyena” and “anti-Indian”. Republic argued that the man had been present at the rally, had allegedly harassed its reporter, and had moved towards the channel’s woman journalist “in an intimidating and aggressive manner” while shouting, “jhoot bol rahi hai ye”. The NBDSA was unconvinced. It noted that Goswami’s language was “totally unwarranted and unjustified,” especially when paired with the visual targeting of a single individual. The authority held that the broadcast violated the Code of Ethics and ordered Republic to issue an apology.

The second complaint was over Goswami’s allegation that Punjab minister Navjot Singh Sidhu was acting as a “lynchpin of the Pakistani ISI” and that he had received money from the agency. Republic claimed the anchor had merely offered a political opinion, but the authority found no merit in the broadcaster’s defense. It issued the channel a formal warning.

Soon after, in 2019, Goswami established another the News Broadcasters Federation, was elected its president, and has remained in that post ever since. TV9 Bharatvarsh, which is also known for exiting NBDA after its self-regulatory body passed orders against it in 2012, was amongst the first few channels to become part of the Goswami-led association.

Newslaundry attempted to examine the NBF’s record, but its website offered no clarity: there was no public data on orders passed against member television channels, and the section on digital members simply stated that zero orders had been issued.

Inderjeet Ghorpade, a social worker who has filed at least 50 complaints before the NBDSA, told us, “NBF seems like a non-functioning body. Every time I file a complaint, they issue a complaint number but the complaint never progresses from there.”

The NBF denied Ghorpade’s allegation, saying that it had not received any written complaint against its member channels in the past year. When asked why its public records reflected zero orders, an official, speaking on condition of anonymity, offered an explanation: “The website is under construction, so we haven’t updated the records. But even when it is updated, the numbers will still show zero because we resolve complaints ‘live’.” He claimed most complaints reach them through phone calls or WhatsApp messages, and are addressed instantly. “Once the complaint comes in, we immediately decide on it during the ad breaks. If a correction is needed, we ask the channel to fix it right away. Instead of following a long, drawn-out procedure that takes months, we believe in taking ‘live’ action.”

Asked how many channels have been penalised, or whether the NBF ever orders apologies or monetary compensation, the official was categorical: “We don’t believe in penalising. We feel the best way towards self-regulation is for the media to correct its course of action on its own once we are concerned about their broadcast.”

When the NBDSA had teeth

The first channel fined by the NBDSA was not on the basis of a complaint at all, but through a suo motu action. In February 2011, TV9 aired a programme titled “Gay culture rampant in Hyderabad”. It opened with the reporter delivering a piece-to-camera that set the tone for what followed: “A boy trying to pursue a girl is common, but boys pursuing boys has become a fashion.”

The segment then cut to footage of a Secunderabad pub which the reporter treated as evidence of a social emergency. “This is the pub where software employees, rich kids and students party on weekends,” she explained, before announcing its supposed “speciality”: “The people you see in the video drunk dancing are gay."

The report grew more invasive. The channel had lured a college student into what it openly described as a “trap”. The segment ended with the reporter’s own diagnosis of the crisis she believed she had uncovered: “A lot of employees in higher positions, white-collared workers, highly qualified students are becoming slaves to a lifestyle which is against nature. Taking this as an advantage, some people are blackmailing them.”

Former chief justice of India and the NDBSA’s then chairperson Justice J S Verma took suo motu cognisance of the matter and found that the broadcaster had violated the Code of Ethics and ordered the channel to pay a fine of Rs 1 lakh and run an apology for three consecutive days between 8 pm to 9 pm in English and 3 pm to 4 pm in Telugu.

An analysis of a set of 13 complaints received by the authority, as mentioned in the NBDA’s 2010 annual report, shows objections were about programmes like Astro Uncle on Aaj Tak, which claimed to treat children’s dental problems through astrological charts; to investigative reports that named individuals on the basis of police versions alone; and to speculative stories – on the possible exit of a major bank, or on fluctuations in crude oil prices – presented without verification.

By 2024, however, the nature of complaints had shifted. There were more complaints flagging broadcasts that encouraged superstition, promoted communal narratives, or directly targeted minorities. 

Take, for instance, the complaint against an “exclusive” interview conducted by CNN-News18’s managing editor Anand Narasimhan with the Shankaracharya of Puri’s Govardhan Peeth. In the 30-minute segment, the seer expounded on the sanctity of caste in Hinduism and the possibility of India becoming a Hindu nation, while the anchor listened without a single challenging question. 

A complaint filed before the NBDSA accused the broadcaster of promoting caste hierarchy, advancing Hindu-rashtra ideology, and encouraging superstitious and unscientific beliefs. Yet the authority stopped short of finding a violation of its code. No formal censure was issued.

On August 19, 2024, Times Now and Times Now Navbharat aired two debates titled “Sankalp Rashtra Nirman Ka: कराची का लिटरेचर..भारत के मदरसों में क्या कर रहा ?” and “Rashtravad: भारत का मदरसा…पालकस्तान का सिलेबस?”, featuring statements by then NCPCR chairperson Priyank Kanoongo alleging that government-funded madrassas in Bihar use Pakistan-published radical curriculum. Citizens for Justice and Peace filed a complaint calling the language in both programmes “extremely Islamophobic” and arguing that the hosts let accusations go unchecked, thereby implicitly endorsing a narrative linking madrassas with extremism.

The authority, before issuing its order, remarked that if madrassas teach “hatred towards other religion or syllabus of Pakistan or fundamentalism”, it would be unconstitutional, even though the Deputy Director of the Bihar State Madrasa Board had refuted the claims on the same show. But the authority only warned the anchor against repeating this in future, without penalising the channels or finding any violation of the code of ethics.

This pattern has dominated many orders in the last five years. 

Saurav Das, an independent journalist who has filed several complaints with the authority, said, “In my last hearing of complaints against the  coverage of Sushant Singh Rajput’s case, they had fined only one channel for running some tickers… the other members were just issued the same guidelines…Therefore, I felt very discouraged…they did not want to take strict actions against the journalists…I thought there is simply no point doing all of this.” 

Inderjeet Ghorpade alleged many channels are not serious about compliance. “I have experienced instances when channels have not complied with the authority’s order and taken down the video in seven days.” 

The numbers tell the story

Newslaundry analysed 416 complaints – from here and here – filed before the NBDSA against 78 channels since 2019, with the bulk targeting the country’s most-watched Hindi news networks. Zee News received the highest number of complaints (63), followed by Aaj Tak (52), News18 India (38), Times Now (35), ABP News (33) and India TV (31).

But the authority found violations of its Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards in 128 cases, roughly 30 percent of the total, and ordered corrective action in even fewer.

There are 125 cases where the committee found no violation, 117 cases where no decision was taken and guidelines were circulated against the accused publishers, 44 complaints dismissed, and in two other cases it found violations but took no action against the channel.

Of the 128 cases where the NBDSA found breaches of its Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards, Zee News led with 28 violations, followed by News18 India with 20, Times Now Navbharat with 14, Aaj Tak with 10, and ABP News with 8.

But the NBDSA has imposed fines in only 12 cases, directed broadcasters to carry its order on air in 9, and ordered an on-air apology in just 5. In 40 cases it ordered the content to be taken down while it merely cautioned the broadcaster in the remaining instances.

The regulations empower the authority to fine member channels up to one percent of their annual turnover – capped at Rs 25 lakh – upon a fourth violation. Despite being the biggest violator with 28 instances, Zee News has been monetarily penalised only once. The sums have been modest too. Only two channels — ABP News and Aaj Tak — were fined Rs 1 lakh; in all other cases, the fine was limited to Rs 50,000. The highest number of fine orders, five in total, were issued against News18 India.

Out of the 40 takedown orders, the maximum have been issued against Times Now Navbharat (12), News 18 India (11), followed by Zee News (6), Aaj Tak (4) and India Today (2). 

But the NBDSA instructs channels to remove programmes without requiring them to explain why the videos were taken down. In 2025, it reviewed 26 complaints and found violations in nine, ordering take-downs in most. 

S Y Quraishi, a former member of the authority, commented, “I am surprised to learn that they don’t impose fines these days. Then what do they do? The whole point is to discipline. And the main thing was to penalise them — only then would they improve. But even the fines weren’t what stung the broadcasters.”

Quraishi also said a public apology would have left broadcasters “embarrassed”. But there are few instances of such action, just five in these five years.

The fines and on-air apologies

Of the 12 cases where fines were imposed since 2019, 5 were against News18 Group channels, three against Aaj Tak, two against ABP News, and one each against Zee News and Kannada channel Suvarna News.

The fines against News18 Group channels pertained to a debate show by News18 Kannada stereotyping the Tableeghi Jamaat Covid issue. The rest were imposed on News18 India, for a show accusing hijab-clad women of being part of a “Ghazwa Gang”, another celebrating police action against Muslim men during Navratri, the show Desh Nahin Jhukne Denge that claimed “jansankhya jihad” in Assam and Uttar Pradesh, four shows that communalised the Shraddha Walkar murder case as “Love Jihad”. 

ABP News was fined twice for revealing the identity of women in sexual assault cases - one in Haryana and another in Hyderabad. 

Aaj Tak faced fines for revealing the identity of the victim in a gangrape case in Haryana and for airing unverified tweets attributed to Sushant Singh Rajput. It also faced a penalty for drawing a comparison between Barack Obama’s statement and the ideology of pro-Khalistan and pro-Pakistan groups. “In India, if you do not protect the rights of ethnic minorities, there is a strong possibility that India at some point might start pulling apart,” Obama had said.

Zee News was fined for a show headlined “मदरसों में बारूदी तालीम” in which the anchor pointed to a blast at a madrassa to give an impression that all madrasas were fostering terror.

Suvarna News was fined for unsubstantiated claims about Tableeghi Jamaat attendants demanding luxury facilities.

The five orders to air a public apology were for five different complaints naming multiple channels.

In 2020, the NBDSA issued directives in the aftermath of Sushant Singh Rajput’s death, ordering Aaj Tak, Zee News, News 24, ABP News, News Nation, News18 India, India TV, and Times Now to run on-air apologies. That same year, Times Now was separately ordered to apologise for a broadcast that personally targeted and defamed a woman, presenting accusations as fact. Another 2020 order directed Zee News, Zee 24 Taas, and Zee Hindustan to run apology tickers for airing hashtags and tickers such as “Khul gaya Rakul ka raaz, Rhea ke gang ki do saheliyan - ek Sara, ek Rakul”.

In 2021, the authority found News18 India, News18 Bihar/Jharkhand, and CNBC TV18 guilty of revealing the identities of vulnerable victims in the Muzaffarpur shelter home case and of communalising the issue despite a High Court order.

The same year, ABP News was instructed to apologise for a broadcast in which while reporting on the death of Major General Qassem Soleimani in Iran, the anchor referred to him as a “terrorist”.   

Complaints to NBDSA channels are in a two-tier format: the first tier is contacting the broadcaster’s compliance officer, and the second means escalation to the NBDSA. But this first tier remains opaque, with little public disclosure of how, or whether, broadcasters respond.

Pressure from within?

At least three people inside the association told Newslaundry that broadcasters routinely attempted to pressure the NBDSA and its authority into softening their stance or diluting orders.

A former member of the self-regulatory authority recalled an alleged instance in which members of the NBDA had sought a meeting over tea with its standards authority. 

One of these was “when Justice R V Raveendran was the chairperson of the association,” the former member claimed. A team of 20 people from the association came to “meet us” and said “our judgments” were “too strongly” against them. “But I told them that if you have come to lecture us on judgements then we should resign from the authority. It put them in their place,” the former member claimed.

A former managing editor of India TV recalled another such incident where the channel’s representatives were upset with Justice Verma for a decision that penalised them. They felt the channel was not given an adequate opportunity to clarify its position and left the association, “but joined back within a couple of months”.

However, in a response to Newslaundry, the NBDA insisted that the “authority operates with full independence free from any influence or pressure and its decisions are guided only by the principles and guidelines enshrined under the code of conduct/guidelines/advisories”. “There is no question of the chairperson, NBDSA or the independent members being either influenced or pressurised as alleged.”

Focus on ads rather than standards?

As compliance with the Code of Ethics weakened, the NBDA increasingly directed its energy elsewhere – towards securing better advertisement rates from the government.

Newslaundry’s analysis of 18 years of annual reports shows that references to content regulation gradually receded, replaced by detailed accounts of the association's efforts to negotiate higher rates with the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DAVP), the government’s central advertising agency.

However, the NBDA, in its response, insisted that it is “incorrect” to say a major portion of its annual reports is devoted towards securing better advertisement rates for government ads. It said that since its inception, it had made representations before ministries on several crucial issues concerning the media, and listed at least 40 specific instances.

At the same time, it maintained that the Memorandum and Articles of Association require the NBDA to promote, protect and secure interests of media outlets; to communicate with government authorities and other commercial bodies to promote measures for protection of trade and establish better understanding and relations between media outlets and other entities, the government, the public and other industry bodies. Read the full response here.

During the economic slowdown in late 2000s, the UPA government had extended a fiscal stimulus package to newspapers through higher DAVP rates — but left television news out. So, just a year after its formation, in 2008, the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) began a sustained campaign for higher government advertisement rates. 

Their push was backed by viewership data: Television Audience Measurement figures showed news channels had grown at a 12 percent compound annual growth rate, with English channels rising 14 percent, Hindi channels holding steady at 6 percent, and regional news surging by 28 percent. Yet, despite this growth, the NBA argued that the government was refusing to treat print and electronic media on equal footing. The NBA wrote repeatedly to ministers, including the finance minister and information and broadcasting officials to extend the stimulus package to them as well. 

From 2009, the association began participating in pre-budget consultations with the information and broadcasting ministry. They sought the removal of service tax on advertising, a review of fringe benefit tax, and most importantly, a fiscal package for DAVP advertising on TV.

The NBA secured a meeting with Frank Noronha, then DG of DAVP, and made a formal presentation on “fair pricing for news channels.”

By 2011, the tone had sharpened. In the association’s annual report, then NBA president K V L Narayan Rao of NDTV wrote that news broadcasting had become financially unsustainable. “Ordinarily,” he wrote, “more viewers should mean more advertising. Why is that not the case in India?” He lamented that, despite “four years of engagement” with the ministry seeking a fair DAVP rate, the revised rates announced that year were even lower than before. The industry’s largest players, he warned, were being denied the basic revenues needed to maintain programming quality.

In 2012, Rao warned that broadcasters were in “a financially fragile environment,” squeezed between declining ad revenue and high carriage fees. The TRAI’s proposal to cap advertising at 12 minutes per hour was another risk. Many broadcasters, he said, were now “fighting for survival”. That year, the NBA told the ministry that DAVP’s revised rate formula had offered rates lower than those set four years earlier — an “unacceptable” reduction that pushed several broadcasters to withdraw entirely from DAVP empanelment.

In 2014, as soon as the BJP government took office, NBA president Rajat Sharma met then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley to press yet again for higher DAVP rates, alongside issues like carriage fees and TRP methodology, suggests the annual report. The NBA board continued pressing the ministry to create a rate structure committee, and after years of back-and-forth, such a committee was finally constituted in 2015. The DAVP formally sought inputs from broadcasters, and the NBA’s sales subcommittee began preparing submissions.

But even in 2016, Sharma wrote in his annual message that DAVP rates remained “a concern,” and although the committee’s report was expected soon, no improvements had materialised. In 2017, NBA vice-president M K Anand of Bennett Coleman expressed near-identical frustration: despite years of follow-up, the new Advertisement Policy announced once again delivered lower DAVP rates for news channels. 

By 2021, after years of negotiations with the central government had failed to yield the desired DAVP rates, the association turned its attention to a different front: the growing dominance of global technology platforms. In his annual report, Sharma wrote that the shift in news consumption to digital platforms had created a structural imbalance between traditional broadcasters and tech giants. 

In 2024, the association pushed this campaign against big-tech platforms into the policy arena. On August 27, the NBDA board met the information and broadcasting minister, Ashwini Vaishnaw, raising concerns about the growing imbalance in bargaining power between news broadcasters and digital intermediaries. The minister recommended forming a joint task force with other industry bodies to examine fair-revenue frameworks. 

It’s not as if the Narendra Modi government has not given ads to TV news. In December 2022, responding to a question by Congress MP Digvijaya Singh, Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting Anurag Thakur disclosed that the Narendra Modi government had spent Rs 6,491 crore on print and electronic media advertisements since 2014. Over eight years, the Centre spent nearly equal amounts on the two mediums: about Rs 3,260 crore on television and Rs 3,230 crore on print. A more detailed breakdown tabled in the Rajya Sabha for 2020–22 shows that four of the top recipients of electronic media ad money were NBDA members.

Network18 and its news properties – CNN-News18, News18 India, CNBC-TV18 and several regional channels – received the highest share at Rs 9 crore. They were followed by Zee Media at Rs 7.8 crore, ABP Group at Rs 4.5 crore, TV9 Network (a member of the NBF) at Rs 3.8 crore, and ITV Network at Rs 2.5 crore.

However, a board member who spoke on condition of anonymity pointed to shrinking industry revenues: “Over time, our advertisement pie — whether government or corporate — has been eaten into by digital, while print’s ad pie has remained untouched.”

A former editor part of the authority claimed the NBDA was “an eyewash”. “Whenever they met the government, editors were never included…their conversation would focus on better business for broadcasters.”

How it all started

Around 2007, the Congress-led UPA government had begun circulating the Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill. The promoters of television channels saw the draft as a warning – an early sign of a “hardening of the policy environment with respect to the freedom of media organisations,” as the NBDA’s annual report of 2007 would later note.

The then I&B minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi noted the law was “long overdue”.  He had remarked that news channels were misusing their license by injecting entertainment in their programmes, such as content involving “bhoot, pret” (ghosts and spirits).

However, a former managing editor of India TV claimed, “Uss time sabhi ke sabhi news channels haywire jaa rahe the. We were doing a lot of stories exposing corruption during the UPA-II government. Coalgate scam, 2G spectrum scam. The government felt it had to step in.” 

Television channels, he said, quickly understood that if the industry did not act on its own, regulation would come from above. “They wanted to tell the government: you have no business to regulate us. So the thinking was that we will create our own body, completely independent, completely autonomous, and show that we can keep ourselves in check.”

The preamble to its Code of Ethics reflected that sentiment: “A media that is meant to expose the lapses in government and in public life cannot obviously be regulated by the government — it would lack credibility.” “It is a fundamental paradigm of freedom of speech that the media must be free from governmental control in the matter of content — censorship and free speech are sworn enemies.”

The code meticulously laid out reporting guidelines: accuracy and impartiality in news; restraint while covering violence, especially involving women and children; and caution in reporting matters of national security. It discouraged promoting superstition through reporting, set limits on sting operations, and set clear principles for reporting on sex, nudity, and other sensitive themes.

Under the self-regulatory framework, the member channels of NBDA would hold each other accountable for the content they air through a two-tier mechanism.

At the first level, a complainant must write to the broadcaster or digital publisher within fifteen days of the content being aired or published.

If the complainant does not receive a response within fifteen days, or is dissatisfied with it, they may then approach the NBDSA. The committee is supposed to be headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court, and comprising four independent members and four editors employed by NBDA members who decide on these complaints.

According to the guidelines, the authority may impose a range of penalties if it finds a violation of the code. The committee may issue a warning, apology, censure, or order the takedown of the content. It could also levy fines: Rs 2 lakh for the first violation, Rs 5 lakh for the second, Rs 10 lakh for the third, and up to 1 percent of the channel’s annual turnover for the fourth, subject to a cap of Rs 25 lakh. In addition, the authority may direct a programme to be suspended for up to one week and the anchor to be taken off air for up to a month.

In 2007, the first NBDSA was chaired by former Chief Justice of India Jagdish Sharan Verma. Justice Verma is known as one of the most highly regarded Chief Justices, known for landmark judgments like Vishakha guidelines to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

A managing editor of a television channel and former representative to the NBA recalled, “Justice Verma would take only one rupee as honorarium because he felt that if he accepted money from the channels, how could he then sit in judgment over them… Whenever there was a hearing on a complaint against our channel, we would be genuinely nervous before entering his court.”

Newslaundry has shared the data with the authority along with a detailed questionnaire. The report will be updated if a response is received.

Newslaundry sent a questionnaire to NBF, Arnab Goswami, and TV9 Bharatvarsh. Questions were also sent to Rajat Sharma. This report will be updated if they respond.