Latest: Kerala HC bench cites 2017 ruling that campus dharna participants are liable to expulsion; students move Supreme Court
A Kerala High Court Division Bench set aside a Single Judge's interim order that let 16 suspended Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit students sit exams from November 4. It said dharna, hunger strikes and satyagraha have no place in academic institutions, relied on a 2017 ruling, and found the students had not shown eligibility under university rules.
The students have moved the Supreme Court against the order. Summary updated 4 Nov, 18:44 IST
Why it matters: The ruling on protest methods and discipline in universities may shape how campuses elsewhere in India treat student agitations and exam eligibility.
This matter is before the courts or under investigation. Nazariya reports what was said and alleged; it does not decide guilt or the outcome.
New developments are added here, newest first. When the headline, summary or other sections change, the earlier version is kept under “See earlier version”.
Headline before this update: Kerala High Court bars dharna and hunger strikes on campuses, sets aside order letting 16 suspended students sit exams
Summary before this update: A Kerala High Court Division Bench set aside a Single Judge's interim order that let 16 suspended Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit students sit exams. It said dharna, hunger strikes and satyagraha have no place in academic institutions and that the students had not shown eligibility under university rules.
Note before this update: Both articles are neutral court reports and agree on the ruling; they differ mainly in how much of each side's account of the August 13 incident they include.
“What's missing” before this update:
Based on 3 articles read in full. Scores describe each article's framing, not the outlet and not whether it is accurate.
Large outlets read: 1 of 15 (Hindustan Times). Most of India’s largest outlets, including NDTV, India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu and Indian Express, block our reader in this prototype, so their coverage is missing here. The launch pipeline reads their public feeds.
All three articles are neutral court reports and agree on the ruling; they differ in how much of each side's account of the August 13 incident they include and in what they stress from the 2017 precedent.
No real disagreement between sides in this coverage.
Why: Mostly neutral court report with both university and student versions. Slight civil-liberties angle from headline quote on protest curbs, but no strong framing or loaded wording.
Why: Legal report of a court ruling on campus discipline and exam eligibility; no party-political or ideological framing, balanced account of both sides' arguments.
Why: Reports a court ruling on campus protests and exam eligibility, with no clear religion, social justice or statism angle. Tone is factual and attributes claims to the court and the university.
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.