A Supreme Court bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale allowed certified green crackers in Delhi-NCR on November 7 and 8, in set morning and evening slots. It barred bursting near hospitals and silence zones and said the complete ban returns from November 9, 2026.
Why it matters: Millions of Delhi-NCR residents, traders and manufacturers must follow the Diwali rules, which also set how the court balances festival practice against air pollution and health.
Based on 17 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 (Times of India, Hindustan Times, Republic, Times Now, Dainik Bhaskar, Jagran).
All outlets report the order in a neutral tone and differ only in which details they stress. One outlet's burst timings differ from the rest.
No real disagreement between sides in this coverage.
Why: Plain report of a Supreme Court order on green crackers. It touches environment and regulation lightly, with no religious or partisan framing, so direction is centrist.
Why: Plain report of a Supreme Court order on green crackers with regulatory detail. Touches environment and enforcement but no clear ideological framing; no loaded wording or partisan sourcing.
Why: Plain report of a court order balancing Diwali's religious significance against environmental limits; no loaded wording and both concerns get space. It touches religion only lightly, so the score sits at centre.
Why: Plain report of a court order on green crackers; it touches festival and environment regulation but frames neither side, with no loaded wording or advocacy.
Why: Explainer on a Supreme Court order on green crackers; balances tradition and health, no loaded framing, no party or government slant. Only marginally touches cultural-festival and environment themes.
Why: Plain report of a court order on green crackers with time limits and silence zones; balanced between festival and pollution concerns, no loaded framing or partisan sourcing.
Why: Plain report of a Supreme Court order on green crackers; touches a cultural festival and regulation only lightly, with no loaded framing or partisan sourcing, so it sits at the centre.
Why: Plain report of a court order with environmental and health context. It touches the festival only in passing, uses no loaded framing and has no partisan angle, so it sits at the centre.
Why: Reports a Supreme Court order on firecrackers neutrally, touching on religion and environment. Court's remarks on data gaps and state failure are relayed, with no outlet opinion or slant.
Why: Plain report of a Supreme Court order on green crackers for Diwali; it carries no religious, social-justice or statist framing and no editorialising.
Why: Plain report of a Supreme Court order on green crackers and pollution rules; no religious, social-justice or statism framing, and no loaded wording or sourcing slant.
Why: Plain report of a Supreme Court order on green crackers and environmental safeguards. No religion, social justice or statism framing; no government criticism or praise.
Why: Plain report of a Supreme Court order on green crackers, with timings and no-cracker zones. No ideological framing, no government angle and no outside voices.
Why: Plain report of a Supreme Court order on green crackers in Delhi-NCR; no ideological framing, loaded language or government criticism or praise.
Why: Explainer on a Supreme Court order allowing green crackers with restrictions. It is a plain, factual report with no ideological framing or government criticism or praise.
Why: Plain report of a Supreme Court order on green firecrackers, balancing festival and pollution concerns. No ideological framing, no judgment of government; mostly court-directed regulation.
Why: Mainly an opposition politician's criticism of a court order and pollution handling; no clear religion, social justice or statism framing, so not ideological. Stance critical of Centre and Delhi govt via AAP voice.
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.