The News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) held that an episode of Aaj Tak’s programme “Black and White,” hosted by Sudhir Chaudhary, did not meet the standards of neutrality and impartiality required under the broadcasting code while discussing claims that the Taj Mahal was originally a Hindu temple. After reviewing the matter, the authority directed the broadcaster to edit the portion of the programme dealing with the Taj Mahal. However, it did not impose any monetary penalty or additional sanction on the channel.
The matter arose from a complaint concerning an episode that discussed historical claims relating to the Sambhal Jama Masjid, Ajmer Dargah and the Taj Mahal. The complainant argued that the programme promoted a one-sided narrative regarding the destruction of Hindu temples by Muslim rulers and repeated claims that the Taj Mahal had originally been a Hindu temple. According to the complaint, these assertions had already been rejected by official authorities, yet the programme failed to acknowledge those findings or provide viewers with a balanced presentation of the issue.
The broadcaster defended the programme by stating that it was intended as a documentary-style presentation based on material available in books, reports and other published sources. It argued that the programme did not advocate action against any religious structure and was not intended to create communal tension. According to the broadcaster, the purpose of the programme was to examine historical narratives that had become part of public discourse, and the anchor had repeatedly clarified this position during the broadcast.
When the complaint was initially examined, the NBDSA accepted the broadcaster’s explanation. The authority observed that the programme had been presented as a historical discussion and that the anchor had referred to books, reports and other published material while narrating the issues covered in the show. Based on these observations, the authority initially concluded that there had been no violation of the Code of Conduct and closed the complaint.
The complainant later sought a review of that decision, leading the authority to re-examine the broadcast. During the review proceedings, the NBDSA focused specifically on the way the Taj Mahal segment had been presented and assessed whether the programme complied with the principles of neutrality and impartiality expected from news broadcasters. The authority noted that there is a distinction between discussing historical claims and presenting them in a manner that satisfies accepted standards of balanced reporting.
A central issue identified during the review was the programme’s selective reliance on official sources. The NBDSA observed that while discussing claims relating to the Qutub Minar, the programme relied on findings and records of the Archaeological Survey of India. However, when discussing the Taj Mahal, it did not present official records that contradicted the claim that the monument had originally been a Hindu temple. According to the authority, official material was relied upon where it supported one aspect of the narrative but omitted where it challenged another aspect.
The authority found that this selective use of material resulted in a lack of neutrality. It stated that viewers were not provided with any official counter-view regarding the Taj Mahal claim despite the existence of such records. The issue, according to the NBDSA, was not whether every perspective received equal airtime but whether viewers were given access to relevant and authoritative information necessary to understand the issue in a balanced manner.
Addressing the broadcaster’s argument that neutrality does not require equal representation of all viewpoints, the authority acknowledged that impartiality cannot always be measured by the amount of time allocated to competing perspectives. Nevertheless, it concluded that the complete absence of any official counter-position concerning the Taj Mahal claim prevented the programme from meeting accepted standards of objective reporting. In the authority’s view, the omission of such material left viewers with an incomplete understanding of the subject.
Based on these findings, the NBDSA directed the broadcaster to edit the portion of the programme dealing with the Taj Mahal. The authority confined its intervention to that specific segment and did not extend its directions to the remainder of the broadcast. It emphasized that the failure to include relevant official findings concerning the Taj Mahal was the principal reason for concluding that the programme lacked neutrality and impartiality.
At the same time, the authority declined to revisit several other allegations raised in the complaint. It chose not to reconsider issues relating to the overall communal tone of the programme, the omission of references to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, or allegations connected with reporting on tensions in Sambhal. The review remained limited to the question of whether the programme had fairly and impartially handled the claim regarding the origins of the Taj Mahal.
After recording its observations and issuing directions for modification of the relevant content, the NBDSA closed the matter. While it found that the programme had failed to present a neutral account of the Taj Mahal issue because it omitted official records that contradicted the claim being discussed, the authority stopped short of imposing any financial penalty or further sanctions against the broadcaster. The proceedings concluded with observations emphasizing the importance of neutrality, impartiality and balanced reporting when dealing with sensitive historical and religious subjects.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.