AISA president Neha Bora has approached the Delhi High Court against a Delhi Police notice asking her to execute a Rs 10,000 peace bond with surety, after she was preventively detained on 16 October. Her petition calls the notice vague and factually incorrect, and her lawyers plan to seek an urgent hearing as the court is on Dussehra vacation.
Why it matters: The case tests how far police can use preventive powers under the new BNSS against protesters, including those demonstrating over the voter-roll revision.
This matter is before the courts or under investigation. Nazariya reports what was said and alleged; it does not decide guilt or the outcome.
Why it matters: How India's voter rolls are revised decides who can vote in 2027; the dispute has moved from the Election Commission to the courts, the streets and diplomacy.
Based on 14 articles read in full. Scores describe each article's framing, not the outlet and not whether it is accurate.
Large outlets read: 6 of 15 (Hindustan Times, The Hindu, India Today, Aaj Tak, Zee News, ABP).
Coverage broadly agrees on the facts; outlets differ in how much they carry AISA's allegations, and a few details such as the vacation end date and the sections cited vary.
No real disagreement between sides in this coverage.
Why: Centres the petitioner's civil-liberties challenge to a police preventive notice and the SIR protests; police side absent, so framing leans left and critical of authorities.
Why: Centres on a student leader challenging a preventive-detention and peace-bond notice, framing civil liberties against police power. Mostly neutral wording, but only the challenger's side appears and no police response is given.
Why: Centres AISA's civil-liberties challenge to a peace bond and police surveillance, with allegations against Delhi Police and Modi govt; no police or government response is given.
Why: Centres AISA's civil-liberty challenge to a peace bond and its claims of state suppression; the police side is barely heard. Stresses protest rights and SIR concerns.
Why: Relays AISA's account and Bora's plea on civil liberties, protest rights and alleged surveillance; no police or government response, so it leans left on liberties and critical of the state.
Why: Relays AISA's claims of police intimidation and curbs on protest, SIR and CEC criticism; it stresses civil liberties and sceptical views of state power. Police side is absent.
Why: Frames police preventive action as suppression of peaceful dissent, foregrounding the petitioner's civil-liberties claims and the SIR protests. No police response is quoted, so the piece leans critical of authorities.
Why: Centres on civil-liberties challenge (Articles 19, 21) to police preventive action; petitioner's arguments and criticism get most space, with police grounds only summarised. Mild left lean from the civil-liberties framing.
Why: Frames peace bond as suppression of peaceful dissent, foregrounds civil-liberties arguments and activist voices, with no police or government response; scepticism of state security powers pushes left.
Why: Centres the student leader's civil-liberties challenge to a security-law bond notice; sourcing leans on Bora's side with no police response, stressing protest rights and scepticism of state power.
Why: Relays AISA's civil-liberties claims about protest curbs and the SIR with little police response; frames the notice as a restriction on peaceful protest, so it leans left and critical.
Why: Plain report on a student leader challenging a police peace-bond notice; touches civil liberties and state power but with little loaded language or advocacy, so near centre.
Why: Short legal report touches civil liberties and protest rights; frames SIR as risking disenfranchisement via protesters' view, and notes police justification. Mild left lean, balanced stance.
Why: Mostly Bora's petition and statements, stressing civil liberties and questionable police use of preventive powers. Tone stays factual, with no police reply, giving a mild left lean.
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: [name to be added before launch]. Grievance officer under the IT Rules, 2021: [name and contact to be added before launch]. Complaints are acknowledged within 24 hours and resolved within 15 days.
[Who owns and funds Nazariya, to be published before launch]. Nazariya will list every funder and will not accept money from any political party.
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 email to be added before launch].
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.