The News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) has imposed a fine of Rs. 2 lakh on Zee News for its coverage of Palestine solidarity slogans raised during a student protest at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), holding that it violated the broadcasting Code of Conduct.

The order has been passed by the Authority chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice A.K. Sikri (Retd.).

The Authority has also directed Zee News to remove the impugned footage from its website, YouTube and other channel platforms, including hyperlinks providing access to the broadcasts.

The order was passed on September 11, on a complaint filed by one Talha Mannan against programmes aired on August 16, 2025, including “Deshhit: AMU में 'फिलिस्तीन प्रेमी गैंग'.. 'योगी स्टाइल' में होगा इलाज!” and “DNA: फीस माफी वाले आंदोलन में फिलिस्तीन जिंदाबाद कहाँ से आ गया? Aligarh Muslim University.”

Mannan, a Ph.D. research scholar at Maulana Azad National Urdu University and an alumnus of AMU, had addressed an approximately 18-minute speech during a peaceful student protest held on August 12, 2025, against a fee hike and seeking restoration of the Students' Union.

He alleged that Zee News subsequently aired selective 10–15-second footage of slogans raised during the protest, portraying lawful expressions of solidarity with Palestine as criminal or anti-national conduct.

The NBDSA observed that Zee News had omitted the principal purpose of the agitation, namely the fee hike and focused on Palestine solidarity slogans, creating an impression that the protest itself concerned the Palestinian war.

The Authority also took note of on-screen tickers such as “AMU में फिलिस्तीन प्रेमी गैंग” and “योगी स्टाइल में होगा इलाज”, observing that the coverage gave the event an inflammatory twist and appeared to advocate criminal action rather than neutral reporting.

“Consequently, NBDSA decided to levy a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs on the broadcaster,” the order stated.

The Authority further condoned delays in filing the complaint at both levels of redressal, noting that the complainant had acted diligently and that the delay at the second level was not directly attributable to him.

Click here to read order