Latest: Supreme Court issues notice to Rahul Gandhi, orders CCTV footage of October 12 incident preserved
A Supreme Court bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to Rahul Gandhi and others on an application alleging a pregnant journalist was pushed during the 12 October opposition march. The court also directed that CCTV footage and digital records of the incident be preserved.
The application seeks an FIR and compensation, and the allegations are unproven. One outlet reports that Congress rejects them and that the next hearing is on 3 November, and another reports, citing police sources, that Delhi Police have registered four FIRs over the march. Summary updated 28 Oct, 18:27 IST
Why it matters: The case involves opposition politics, press safety at protests and the court's handling of an FIR demand, all of which affect public trust in institutions.
This matter is before the courts or under investigation. Nazariya reports what was said and alleged; it does not decide guilt or the outcome.
New developments are added here, newest first. When the headline, summary or other sections change, the earlier version is kept under “See earlier version”.
Summary before this update: A Supreme Court bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to Rahul Gandhi and others on an application alleging a pregnant journalist was pushed during the October 12 opposition march. The application seeks an FIR and compensation; the allegations are unproven, and one outlet reports that Congress rejects them and that the next hearing is on 3 November.
Note before this update: All three outlets are neutral and report the court notice and the plea's claims. Only one includes Congress's denial and the next hearing date.
“What's missing” before this update:
Based on 5 articles read in full. Scores describe each article's framing, not the outlet and not whether it is accurate.
Large outlets read: 4 of 15 (Republic, Times Now, Dainik Bhaskar, Jagran).
All five outlets are neutral toward the government and report the court notice and the plea's claims. Only one carries Congress's denial and the next hearing date, and only one mentions police FIRs.
No real disagreement between sides in this coverage.
Why: Reports the court notice and the petition's allegations with Congress's denial included. Loaded words like 'sensitive' and 'serious' lean slightly against Rahul Gandhi, but the framing is mostly procedural and on the SIR march.
Why: Mostly court-process report, but sourcing leans on petitioner and BJP claims with no Congress reply; mild right tilt on security and order framing. Stance stays neutral toward Union govt.
Why: Court-process report on an alleged incident at a protest. It repeats the plea's claims with caveats and touches no ideological dimension. The SIR protest is only background.
Why: Reports a court notice on an assault allegation against an opposition leader. It has no clear policy or ideological framing, and the SIR mention is only background. The sourcing leans on the petitioner's side.
Why: Plain court report of a notice over an alleged push; no policy or ideological framing. Mentions SIR protest only as background. Plea's claims are attributed, but Gandhi's side is absent.
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.