The complaint, filed by Indrajeet Ghorpade, argued that the program titled “Baba Bageshwar Exclusive Interview,” aired on July 10, 2023, violated the broadcaster’s self-regulation principles by promoting superstition. Ghorpade emphasized that broadcasters must be accountable for guests’ statements, citing NBDSA guidelines and a Bombay High Court ruling that holds broadcasters responsible for inflammatory remarks made by their guests.
NEW DELHI: The News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) on November 6 ordered News18 India to remove an interview with Dhirendra Krishna Shastri, also known as Bageshwar Baba, from all media platforms within seven days. NBDSA found that the broadcast promoted superstition, religious discord, and blind faith.
Justice (retd) AK Sikri, NBDSA Chairperson, stated that Shastri’s comments during the interview, including claims advocating for a “Hindu Rashtra” and mandates such as saying “Sita Ram” to live in India, were divisive. Shastri also alleged that Islam encourages “love jihad” to harm Hindu women, remarks deemed harmful to communal harmony.
READ ALSO: Rajasthan HC Extends Stay for Baba Ramdev Amid Anti-Muslim Remarks
BRIEF FACTS
The complaint, filed by Indrajeet Ghorpade, argued that the program titled “Baba Bageshwar Exclusive Interview,” aired on July 10, 2023, violated the broadcaster’s self-regulation principles by promoting superstition. Ghorpade emphasized that broadcasters must be accountable for guests’ statements, citing NBDSA guidelines and a Bombay High Court ruling that holds broadcasters responsible for inflammatory remarks made by their guests.
News18 India defended the interview, claiming Shastri’s prominence in news and that his remarks were personal responses rather than prompted statements. The broadcaster maintained that it discouraged communal remarks and that Shastri clarified his views on “Hindu Rashtra” as personal beliefs.
NBDSA, however, reiterated that while editorial freedom exists, broadcasters must adhere to ethical codes and avoid content that spreads superstition or threatens religious harmony. NBDSA thus concluded that the program violated guidelines on reportage concerning racial and religious harmony, the occult, and advisory standards against promoting superstition. News18 was represented by Senior Legal Counsel Puneesh Kochar.
The complainant argued that any educated or scientifically minded person could easily refute the preacher’s claims, suggesting that if the anchor required a special investigation to fact-check these claims, he might be unfit for such live programming. Concerning Shastri’s remarks during the interview, the complainant emphasized the “communal nature” of the statements and noted that the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards requires controversial topics to be “fairly presented,” which was allegedly not followed.
In defense against allegations of promoting superstition, the broadcaster explained that the anchor had interrupted the seer by asking, “isn’t that magic?”, to which the seer responded that his words were not absolute truth. Addressing accusations of communal bias, the broadcaster stated that when the seer expressed a preference for hugging Hindu children, the anchor questioned why he did not want to embrace children from other communities and encouraged inclusivity.
The broadcaster further claimed that the anchor acknowledged India’s diverse population, emphasizing the importance of considering the interests of all communities. The broadcaster argued that it did not simply accept the seer’s statements, as the anchor had intervened multiple times; however, given the nature of the live interview, these interventions were managed carefully to maintain a non-debate format.
When NBDSA questioned the broadcaster’s choice to host Shastri, it responded that Shastri had been a prominent news figure for months, leading numerous yatras and generating substantial media coverage. The broadcaster stated that it did not initially focus on Shastri’s supernatural claims; rather, Shastri made such remarks in response to general questions about his background, which led to the objections raised by the complainant.
Case Title: Indrajeet Ghorpade v. Kshipra Jatana Compliance Officer NBDSA TV 18 Broadcast Ltd.
