Latest: Raut says he will appear in court on 17 November as directed in contempt case
The Supreme Court directed Sanjay Raut to appear in person on 17 November in a contempt case over remarks on the CJI and judiciary, and told journalist Nikhil Wagle to appear virtually the same day. Raut told PTI he will be present as directed, and the matter is before the court. Summary updated 28 Oct, 19:29 IST
Why it matters: The case tests where criticism of the judiciary ends and contempt begins, and it involves a sitting opposition MP and a journalist.
Winding down: no new coverage since 28 Oct. It will be archived on 4 Nov unless new coverage appears.
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: The Supreme Court directed Sanjay Raut to appear in person on 17 November in a contempt case over remarks on the CJI and judiciary. Journalist Nikhil Wagle was told to appear virtually the same day, and the matter is before the court.
Note before this update: Outlets report the same order and submissions in neutral terms; they differ mainly in which details they add, such as the Albania post or the badminton claim.
“What's missing” before this update:
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: 4 of 15 (Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Aaj Tak, Jagran).
Outlets report the same order and submissions in neutral terms; they differ mainly in which details they add, such as the Albania post, the badminton claim or the Attorney General's consent.
No real disagreement between sides in this coverage.
Why: Court report with both sides' submissions and the order. Touches civil liberties and the judiciary only lightly, with no loaded wording or editorialising, so it sits at centre.
Why: Plain court report with both sides' positions; touches civil liberties and free speech only lightly. No loaded wording or one-sided sourcing, so ideology sits at centre and stance is neutral.
Why: Mostly a procedural report on a Supreme Court contempt summons. It touches no ideological dimension clearly, and the opposition and court sides are both described without the outlet taking a side.
Why: Plain report of a Supreme Court contempt hearing against Sanjay Raut and Nikhil Wagle. No policy or ideological framing; court and SCBA are quoted, and the Union government is not involved.
Why: Short procedural report of a Supreme Court contempt hearing with no policy or ideological framing. Neutral wording, no government angle, and no loaded language or one-sided sourcing.
Why: Plain court report of a contempt hearing against an opposition MP and a journalist; no policy or ideological framing, and both sides' arguments are relayed neutrally.
Why: Court-process report on a contempt case with no clear policy or ideological framing; sources include the bench, SCBA, Raut's and Wagle's side, and the AG.
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.