Delhi HC Judge Recuses From Hearing Shehla Rashid’s Plea Seeking Apology From Zee News And Sudhir Chaudhary

The Delhi High Court judge, Justice Pratibha M. Singh, recused herself on Thursday from hearing a petition filed by JNU activist Shehla Rashid seeking an unambiguous and unequivocal apology from Zee News and its then-anchor Sudhir Chaudhary. It was in reference to a news channel programme that aired in November, 2020.

Shehla Rashid has requested that the News Broadcasters and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) modify an order issued on March 31, 2022, in which the NBDSA refused to direct the broadcaster to air an apology while ruling that the show lacked objectivity and impartiality.

The matter was brought before Justice Pratibha M Singh by counsel appearing for Zee News, who requested time to file a response in the matter.

However, Justice Singh stated that the case will be heard by another bench.

Notice in the petition was issued in September last year. NBDSA, Zee News, and Sudhir Chaudhary were asked to respond within six weeks. The NBDSA had directed Zee News in the impugned order to remove the video of the impugned broadcast from their website, YouTube, and all other links.

Shehla Rashid filed a complaint with the NBDSA against a show that aired on November 30, 2020, in which her father made outrageous allegations about her, her sister, and her mother. Shehla Rashid was also accused of being involved in terror funding. It was also claimed that the anchor had claimed Shehla was involved in anti-national activities.

In an order dated March 31, 2022, NBDSA stated that the channel had presented only one side of the story by allowing the interviewee, the complainant’s father (Shehla Rashid), to air his allegations against the complainant. Shehla Rashid argued in her petition before the Supreme Court that an unjustified refusal to apologise to her is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

The plea stated, “The State recognises the public functions performed by the press and media and, as a result, grants them various rights and privileges, one of which was the right of self-regulation of news channels by Respondent No. 1 of which Respondent Nos. 2-4 are members. The power of self-regulation was to maintain the credibility of the news media by ensuring that it was not hampered by the government in carrying out its functions as the fourth pillar of democracy.”

The plea futher added, “The videos that are currently available have been viewed by a large number of people, have received over 3800 reactions, have been shared by over 500 people, and are still gaining popularity. Thus, simply removing the videos will have no effect on the impact that the broadcast had on the public, nor will it restore the Petitioner’s dignity and reputation, which were harmed by the broadcast. Thus, an apology from Respondents No. 3-4 is required to mitigate the damage to the Petitioner’s reputation caused by the Respondents’ violation of the public duty assumed.”