Latest: Meta restores Fadnavis World Hindu Congress video, reportedly after earlier removal on a legal request under IT Rules
Meta restored a video of Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis inviting Hindus to the World Hindu Congress on October 29, according to VHP spokesperson Vinod Bansal, who alleged bias in Meta's moderation. Meta had restricted the video after it was posted on October 26 and, per one outlet, told organisers it acted on a legal request under the IT Rules; organisers had approached Mumbai Police, Delhi Police and MeitY.
Meta's own account has not been reported, and two outlets note the bias claim has not been independently established. Summary updated 2 Nov, 05:44 IST
Why it matters: The episode raises questions about how platforms apply India's IT Rules and legal requests to content featuring a sitting chief minister and religious events.
New developments are added here, newest first. When the headline, summary or other sections change, the earlier version is kept under “See earlier version”.
Headline before this update: World Hindu Congress says Meta removed Fadnavis appeal video
Summary before this update: The organising committee of World Hindu Congress 2026 says Meta restricted and removed a video of Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis inviting Hindus to the event, and has written to Mumbai Police, Delhi Police and MeitY. Meta had not responded in the coverage, and two outlets note the bias claim has not been independently established.
Note before this update: All three outlets rely on the organisers' account and score Neutral on the government; they differ mainly in how clearly they flag that the bias claim is unproven.
“What's missing” before this update:
Based on 4 articles read in full. Scores describe each article's framing, not the outlet and not whether it is accurate.
Large outlets read: 1 of 15 (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.
Coverage rests on the organisers' and VHP's account; the latest article frames the restoration as proof of bias, while earlier ones flag that the claim is unproven.
Why: Relays Hindu organisers' bias allegation against Meta without any Meta response, using Hindu-cultural framing and the word 'Bharat'. Only one side is heard, but the story is not about the government.
Why: Relays Hindu organisers' bias allegation against Meta almost solely from their side, with a brief caveat that it's unproven. Cultural-nationalist framing on Hindu identity; no other voices.
Why: Frames a Hindu organisation's claim of anti-Hindu bias by Meta mostly through organisers' voice, using cultural-nationalist framing; includes a caveat that bias is unproven. No government critique or praise.
Why: Frames Meta's restriction as 'anti-Hindu bias' in the headline, relies mainly on a VHP spokesperson, and casts Hindu and nationalist voices as targeted. No Meta or government response is included.
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.