The Supreme Court gave the inquiry committee on the July Jantar Mantar student protest violence one more month for an initial report, saying it had received very few complaints. The court directed that petitions, videos and complaints be sent straight to the panel.
Why it matters: The inquiry concerns violence at a student protest in Delhi over the NEET-UG paper leak, and its findings may shape any later action on police conduct and protesters' rights.
This matter is before the courts or under investigation. Nazariya reports what was said and alleged; it does not decide guilt or the outcome.
Based on 6 articles read in full. Scores describe each article's framing, not the outlet and not whether it is accurate.
Large outlets read: 5 of 15 (Times of India, The Hindu, Times Now, Dainik Bhaskar, Jagran).
All three outlets report the hearing in a neutral, procedural way; they differ mainly in which details they include, such as the lawyers' arguments or the panel's outreach.
No real disagreement between sides in this coverage.
Why: Reports court proceedings with both petitioners' and Solicitor General's views; touches civil liberties and police excess but without loaded framing, so near centre. Stance toward Union govt is balanced.
Why: Plain report of a court hearing on a judicial panel probing protest violence; touches civil liberties lightly but without loaded language or one-sided sourcing.
Why: Plain report of a court hearing on police excesses at a protest; touches civil liberties lightly but without loaded framing or one-sided sourcing. Balanced, near-centre.
Why: Mostly neutral court-proceeding report; background on crackdown and internet shutdown and petitioners' questions on ammunition lean slightly towards civil-liberties framing, but no loaded language.
Why: Court-procedure report balancing petitioners' police-violence claims and the Solicitor General's objection; mild civil-liberties angle but no loaded framing, so near centre.
Why: Plain court-procedure report on an extended deadline for an inquiry panel. No framing on religion, social justice or statism, and no loaded wording or partisan sourcing.
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.