Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that the Centre is considering a committee to revisit the UGC's 2026 equity regulations, which the court stayed in January. The 2012 regulations continue to apply, and the hearing was put off by four weeks, as reported by some outlets.
Why it matters: The rules decide how caste discrimination complaints are handled in universities and colleges, so they affect students from every category across India.
This matter is before the courts or under investigation. Nazariya reports what was said and alleged; it does not decide guilt or the outcome.
Based on 6 articles read in full. Scores describe each article's framing, not the outlet and not whether it is accurate.
Large outlets read: 4 of 15 (Times of India, Hindustan Times, Republic, Jagran).
Coverage is largely uniform and procedural; outlets differ on emphasis and on whether the panel is being set up or only considered.
No real disagreement between sides in this coverage.
Why: Reports Centre's review panel and court's 'vague, could be misused' remarks plainly; touches caste-discrimination rules but gives little from protesters or SC/ST/OBC groups, leaning slightly to misuse framing.
Why: Reports court stay and Centre's committee plan mostly through court and SG remarks. 'Controversial' and 'misused' framing lean slightly against group-specific protections, but the tone is largely procedural.
Why: Plain report of a court hearing and the Centre's plan for a review committee. It gives both the caste-discrimination petition and the court's concern about misuse, with no loaded wording.
Why: Balanced report of court hearing; gives both marginalised-student groups and upper-caste objections, plus background on Vemula and Tadvi origins. No loaded wording, so ideology is centre.
Why: Plain report of court hearing; touches caste-discrimination rules but gives no framing or loaded language, and quotes the government and court neutrally. Little ideological signal.
Why: Frames UGC equity rules mainly through general-category students' lack of protection and misuse risk from false complaints, an integrity framing; Vemula and Tadvi petition mentioned briefly. Reporting is mostly factual.
Critical, Neutral or Supportive, scored separately. It refers to the Union government unless the story is about a state. On the spectrum strip, each dot is an article: its position is the ideology score and its colour is the stance.
If an article would score differently with the parties' roles reversed, that signal is partisanship. It goes into the stance tag, not the ideology score.
High, Medium or Low, based on how much of the article was read, how many clear signals it has, and whether they agree.
Stories with fewer than five articles are marked. A blindspot is a contested story where we found coverage from only one side.
Articles that touch none of the three dimensions, such as a car launch or a match report, carry no ideology score.
This prototype is refreshed by hand (last on 17 Oct, 03:00 IST). At launch:
| Wires and the top 20 outlets | checked every 5 minutes |
| All other outlets | checked every 15 minutes |
| New story | goes up at 3 articles from 2 or more outlets, marked Limited coverage |
| Live stories | new articles added every 15 minutes; summary rewritten at most hourly |
| Home page order | every 15 minutes |
New facts go into a dated update log at the top of the story. New articles carry an “Added” tag. If a note or list changes, the earlier version stays viewable.
A story is Live while coverage arrives, Winding down after about 2 days without new coverage, and Archived after about 7. Sport results skip winding down and are archived after about 2 days, unless police or a court are involved. Nothing is deleted: links never change, archived scores are frozen, and stories stay on their issue pages and in search.
NDTV, India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Indian Express, News18, ABP, Times Now and Mint block the reader used for this prototype, so their articles are missing. Each story shows how many of India’s 15 largest outlets we read. The launch pipeline will read outlets’ public feeds, TV transcripts and Hindi articles.
Editor-in-charge: S. Kalra, editor@thenazariya.com. The editor-in-charge sets Nazariya's editorial rules, reviews the AI desks' daily decisions, and is responsible for everything we publish.
How we work: AI reads and scores every article against our published rubric; an AI standards desk checks accuracy and fairness; people set the rules, review decisions and handle complaints.
Grievance officer under the IT Rules, 2021: to be confirmed (based in India). Until then, write to grievance@thenazariya.com. Complaints are acknowledged within 24 hours and resolved within 15 days. To report a factual error: corrections@thenazariya.com. Other questions: support@thenazariya.com.
Ownership: Nazariya is independently owned by S. Kalra, an Indian citizen.
Funding: Nazariya is currently funded entirely by its founder. It carries no advertising and takes no money from any political party, government or party-linked organisation. In future it will be supported by optional reader memberships. Any other funder, grant or investor will be listed here, with the amount and date.
Independence: No owner, funder or member can change a story, a score or a correction. Scores follow the published rubric, and anyone can appeal them.
Anyone, including the outlet that published an article, can appeal a score: tap any score on a story page, then "Appeal this score" to write to the editor. Outlets can also dispute a summary. The editor reviews every appeal, and any change is recorded below. Appeals: appeals@thenazariya.com.
No detail that could identify a child or a survivor of sexual violence (Juvenile Justice Act, POCSO, BNS section 72). Court cases are reported as what was said and alleged. No analysis of a poll in the 48 hours before voting there (Representation of the People Act, section 126). Press Council and NBDSA norms on communal incidents.