A Supreme Court bench led by CJI Surya Kant said the right to protest must be balanced with traders' right to do business, and that no group can hold a designated site indefinitely. It was hearing traders' pleas over losses and petitions on detentions and surveillance linked to recent Delhi protests.
Why it matters: The observations bear on how protest sites in the capital are allotted and how protest rights are weighed against livelihoods across India.
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 7 articles read in full. Scores describe each article's framing, not the outlet and not whether it is accurate.
Large outlets read: 2 of 15 (Hindustan Times, Republic). 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 six articles frame the hearing in a balanced way; they differ mainly in which details they stress, such as trader losses, state surveillance or procedure.
No real disagreement between sides in this coverage.
Why: Balanced court report weighing protest rights against traders' livelihoods; it quotes both petitioners and the Centre, with no loaded wording. Civil-liberties and state-power themes appear but are not tilted either way.
Why: Reports Supreme Court remarks balancing protest rights and traders' livelihoods; includes both the Solicitor General's account and civil-liberties concerns. Tone is even and mostly descriptive, so it sits at the centre.
Why: Court-hearing report balancing protest rights, trader livelihoods and police-excess pleas; includes both petitioners and Solicitor General. Touches civil liberties but does not take a side.
Why: Reports court hearing on protest rights versus trader livelihoods, balanced between both sides; slight tilt from stressing business losses and order-focused framing, but includes police-excess and detention allegations.
Why: Mostly a plain report of a court hearing; SG and traders' arguments on order and livelihoods get space, but the CJI also stresses all groups' right to protest. Slight right tilt.
Why: Reports court remarks balancing protest rights with livelihoods; includes petitioners' civil-liberty issues and Centre's and traders' arguments. Mild order-and-business lean, but largely balanced.
Why: Balanced court report giving traders, police and protesters' counsel their say; touches civil liberties and right to protest but takes no side, so it sits at centre.
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.