The Supreme Court issued a notice to Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee office-bearers asking why contempt proceedings should not begin over a post targeting CJI Surya Kant. The party's lawyer said the post was unauthorised and deleted, and an unconditional apology was offered.
Why it matters: The case tests where criticism of the judiciary ends and contempt begins, a question that affects political parties, social media use and public trust in courts.
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 10 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, Hindustan Times, Times Now, Dainik Bhaskar, Jagran).
All ten outlets report the order in a neutral tone; they differ mainly in which court remarks, party responses and background details they stress.
No real disagreement between sides in this coverage.
Why: Reports a court contempt notice against Congress's Kerala unit, stressing judicial independence and bar bodies' condemnation; light sourcing, no strong loaded wording. Touches national institutions mildly, so a slight right lean.
Why: Plain court report quoting the bench and KPCC's defence. Touches civil liberties and free speech only lightly; no loaded wording or one-sided framing, so it stays centre and neutral.
Why: Reports a Supreme Court contempt notice to Kerala Congress over a post on the CJI. Includes court, Congress, BJP and SCBA voices. No clear ideological dimension or government framing.
Why: Reports a court's contempt notice to a party unit over a social media post; no policy or ideological dimension is engaged, and no government stance is taken.
Why: Reports a Supreme Court contempt notice over a social media post on the CJI; no clear religion, social justice or statism angle, and the framing is mostly neutral court reporting.
Why: Plain report of a Supreme Court contempt notice to Kerala Congress over a social media post. It touches no ideological dimension, and the court's remarks are relayed without added framing or praise.
Why: Reports a court contempt notice to a party unit over a social media post. Balanced coverage includes the bench's remarks and the party's apology; no real ideological dimension is touched.
Why: Reports a court hearing on a contempt notice over a social media post. No clear policy or ideological framing; both the court's remarks and Congress's defence are given.
Why: Reports a Supreme Court contempt notice over a party's social media post. Gives court's words and the party's response; no policy or ideological framing on the rubric's dimensions.
Why: Reports a court contempt notice against a party's social media post; no clear policy angle on religion, social justice or statism, and it neutrally relays the court's order and the apology.
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.