Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Shehla Rashid's Plea Seeking Unequivocal Apology From Zee News, Sudhir Chaudhary Over Programme Broadcasted In 2020

The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice on a plea filed by JNU Scholar Shehla Rashid seeking unambiguous and unequivocal apology from Zee News and its then anchor Sudhir Chaudhary in relation to a programme aired by the news channel in November 2020.

Shehla Rashid has sought modification of an order passed by News Broadcasters and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) dated 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'. 

Justice Yashwant Varma sought response from NBDSA, Zee News and Sudhir Chaudhary within a period of six weeks, while posting the matter for hearing on February 23, 2023.

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 at 11pm 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. It was further alleged that the anchor himself had asserted that Shehla was involved in anti-national activities such as terror- funding. 

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

During the course of hearing today, counsel appearing for Shehla Rashid submitted that once the authority had come to a conclusion that the statement made by broadcaster were in violation of the ethics and standards, it was imperative for it to run an apology for airing the programme in question.

"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 counsel appearing on behalf of NBDSA gave a confirmation to the Court that the broadcaster has removed all the links from all platforms regarding the program in question.

However, Shehla Rashid's counsel said that he has instructions to state that the program was not removed from Facebook (now Meta) platform.

As the Court asked the counsel appearing on behalf of the broadcaster if it was willing to run a line of apology on its platform, the counsel refused to do so.

Accordingly, the Court issued notice on the plea, while clarifying that it was not passing any final order at the present stage.

In her plea, Shehla Rashid has 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.