Noting that pleadings have been completed in the plea which was filed by Rashid in 2022, Justice Swarana Kanta listed the matter on November 26 for final disposal.

The Court directed the respondent authorities- News Broadcasters and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA), Zee News and Chaudhary, to file their written submissions.

Notice in the matter was issued on September 16, 2022, by a coordinate bench.

Shehla Rashid has sought modification of an order passed by NBDSA on March 31, 2022, to the extent that the authority refused to direct the broadcaster to air an apology, while ruling that the show lacked objectivity, impartiality and had presented only 'one side of the story'.

NBDSA, vide the impugned order, had directed Zee News to remove the video of the impugned broadcast from their website, YouTube and all other links.

Shehla Rashid had lodged a complaint with the NBDSA against the show aired on November 30, 2020, wherein her biological father had been interviewed making wild allegations against her, her sister and her mother. It had also been imputed that Shehla Rashid was involved in funding terror.

In an order dated March 31, 2022, the NBDSA was of the view that by allowing the interviewee i.e. the father of the complainant (Shehla Rashid) to vent and air his allegations against her, the channel had presented only one side of the story.

In her plea, Shehla Rashid submitted that an unreasoned refusal to issue an apology to her is wholly 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."

Case Title: Shehla Rashid v. NBDSA & Ors