Latest: JD(U) sources link Singh's expulsion to Lalan Singh's meeting with Nitish Kumar and Speaker recommendation
JD(U) expelled Mokama MLA Anant Singh and his wife, former MLA Neelam Devi, for six years, saying he backed Jan Suraaj's candidate against the party's nominee Neeraj Kumar in the Patna Graduates council seat. The party has recommended to Speaker Prem Kumar that Singh be disqualified under the Tenth Schedule, and the Speaker will decide.
One report says the final decision came after Union minister Lalan Singh met Nitish Kumar, and Singh said he was ready for any action while calling Nitish Kumar his mentor. Counting is scheduled for 27 October. Summary updated 28 Oct, 18:25 IST
Why it matters: The action tests party discipline in Bihar's ruling alliance and could lead to a disqualification decision that may affect the Mokama seat.
Winding down: no new coverage since 28 Oct. It will be archived on 4 Nov unless new coverage appears.
New developments are added here, newest first. When the headline, summary or other sections change, the earlier version is kept under “See earlier version”.
Summary before this update: JD(U) expelled Mokama MLA Anant Singh and his wife, former MLA Neelam Devi, for six years, saying he backed Jan Suraaj's candidate against the party's nominee Neeraj Kumar in the Patna Graduates council seat. The party has asked the Assembly Speaker to disqualify Singh under the Tenth Schedule, and the Speaker will decide. Singh said he was ready to face any action and called Nitish Kumar his political mentor, and counting is scheduled for 27 October.
Note before this update: Outlets largely report the same facts neutrally; they differ mainly in the detail and context they add, such as the tone of the party's order and reactions from within the party.
“What's missing” before this update:
Based on 12 articles read in full. Scores describe each article's framing, not the outlet and not whether it is accurate.
Large outlets read: 7 of 15 (Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Indian Express, India Today, Aaj Tak, Times Now, Dainik Bhaskar).
Outlets largely report the same facts neutrally; they differ mainly in added context, such as the tone of the party's order, Singh's reaction and whether the council result was already out.
No real disagreement between sides in this coverage.
Why: Reports an intra-party disciplinary action in JD(U) with voices from both sides; no religion, social justice or economic policy angle, so not ideological.
Why: Reports a party disciplinary expulsion in Bihar over a council election; no religion, social justice or statism angle, so not ideological. Headline is loaded but the report is mostly factual.
Why: Report on an intra-party disciplinary action in JD(U) with no policy angle on religion, security, social justice or statism, so not ideological.
Why: Party-politics report on an expulsion over a Legislative Council contest. It touches no religion, social justice or economic-policy dimension, and its tone toward the government is even.
Why: Intra-party disciplinary dispute within JD(U) over a council election; no religion, security, social justice or statism angle. Reports both sides' statements without evident slant.
Why: Party-politics report on an intra-party expulsion and election feud; no religion, social justice or economic policy angle, and no government framing either way.
Why: Reports a party disciplinary action over intra-party defiance in an election; no religion, security, social justice or statism angle, so not ideological.
Why: A party-politics report on an expulsion over defection. It touches no religion, social justice or statism dimension, so it is not ideological. No stance toward the Union government.
Why: Party-discipline story about a JD(U) expulsion over defection and rival campaigning; it touches no religion, social-justice or statism dimension, and the framing is factual.
Why: Report on a party disciplinary action over intra-party rebellion in Bihar; no religion, social justice or statism angle, and no pro or anti government framing.
Why: Intra-party disciplinary action in Bihar politics; no religion, security, social justice or statist policy angle. Plain, even-handed account of events with party's stated reasons.
Why: Reports an internal JD(U) disciplinary action over an MLC election revolt; no religion, security, social justice or statism angle, so not ideological. No stance on any government.
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. 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.