Delhi Police have registered a case against unidentified persons over alleged threats to a Special Executive Magistrate handling the bail proceedings of CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka. The two were sent to five days of judicial custody after entering the de-notified Jantar Mantar protest site, and the CJP says their release has been delayed.
Why it matters: The case touches on the right to protest in the capital, how bail and surety rules work in practice, and the wider row over the electoral 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 8 articles read in full. Scores describe each article's framing, not the outlet and not whether it is accurate.
Large outlets read: 3 of 15 (Republic, Zee News, Times Now). 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.
Critical outlets stress the CJP's claims of delay and the right to protest; the supportive outlet leads with the police case; neutral ones report both sides.
Why: Foregrounds protest group's claims of delayed bail and 'vague' rejections of sureties; civil-liberties framing against police and state power, with little police response. Mildly left on liberties.
Why: Centres civil liberties: protest rights, preventive arrest and alleged detention delays. Opposition leader's accusations get most space; police response is brief, so framing leans left and critical of Delhi Police.
Why: Centres protesters' claims of delayed process and political pressure over a protest against SIR; civil-liberties framing and voter-roll concerns lean left, though police position is included.
Why: Mostly a lawyer's balanced due-process commentary; touches SIR and civil liberties only lightly, with no strong framing for either side. Both the magistrate's threat claim and CJP's delay claim are reported.
Why: Reports custody hearing with both police allegations and defence/CJP claims; touches protest rights and SIR voter-roll dispute, but balanced and without loaded framing, so near centre.
Why: Mostly reports police FIR and CJP activists' statements with balanced space; touches civil liberties and protest rights lightly, no loaded framing or clear lean in either direction.
Why: Balanced account of a protest-detention bail dispute; gives both CJP and police versions, touches civil-liberties and state-power themes lightly, with no loaded wording or clear tilt.
Why: Leads with police FIR over threats to magistrate, relies on police sources, notes the protest site was de-notified, and frames the activists' claims as allegations. Tilts toward state authority and law-and-order.
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.