It is common knowledge not to attribute blame and guilt to people while the matters in which they are involved and accused, is sub judice. It seems, this is knowledge, although common, is a scarce quantity in India if the broadcast media in India is any guide. This will be visible to anyone who watched the program – “Goonj with Rubika Liyaquat; Arvind Kejriwal arrested” hosted and anchored by Rubika Liyaquat on News18 on March 28 last year in which she hosted a panel discussion on the infamous Delhi Liquor scam allegedly committed by Arvind Kejriwal and his associates.
The matter was immediately taken up and reported by the APP supporters to the News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA).
A complaint filed by activist Indrajeet Ghorpade taking offense to the way in which the debate program was conducted by Rubika Liyaquat.
Ghorpade took specific objection to the way Rubika ‘looked the other way’ when guilt was attributed to Kejriwal by BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawala. The complainant said the anchor failed to correct the wrong and deliberate attribution by the BJP spokesperson.
On January 24 the NBDSA delivered its verdict and has censured News18 India channel and the program anchor Rubika Liyaquat for not intervening while the BJP got a free hand to attribute guilt to Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal in the liquor scam, while the matter was (and still is) still under probe by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The NBDSA has ordered the channel to delete the offending attribution the debate.
“The problem lay in the manner in which the anchor had attributed guilt in a matter that was sub-judice; this aspect of the broadcast was not only violative of the Specific Guidelines for Reporting Court Proceedings and the principle of neutrality under the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards but also the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Nilesh Navlakha v. Union of India,” the order passed by chairperson retired Justice AK Sikri said.
Rubika usually is seen defending the BJP, particularly Prime Minister Narendra Modi and so she did in that program. When indirectly supporting the AAP and Kejriwal, the Samajwadi party spokesperson raised the issue of Electoral Bonds scheme introduced by the Modi regime, alleging corruption by Modi and his people, Rubika jumped in and criticized him for casting aspersions on the country’s prime minister.
Pertinently, the NBDSA took due notice of the manner in which Liyaquat defended Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
“It was expected that the anchor while defending the Prime Minister would exercise restraint, maintain a professional tone and refrain from indulging in a back and forth debate with the panelist as such discussion distracts from meaningful debate,” the NBDSA said.
Defending itself and its anchor, it said that Rubika Liyaquat was reacting against the objectionable language used against the Prime Minister.
Explaining Rubika’s handling of the Poonawala’s statement, the channel said that Mr Poonawala was able to back his claims up by alluding to the admissions made by Kejriwal’s own counsel in court accepting that the money trail in the liquor scam had already been expended.
The channel also led evidence that it had invited spokespersons of various political parties to the debate which showed a balanced approach.
But the NBDSA led by retired Justice AK Sikri remained unconvinced and found against the channel. It found that the program had violated principles of neutrality, guidelines on reporting court proceedings and Bombay High Court’s Nilesh Navlakha v UOI judgement.
The channel has been given 7 days to delete the violating parts from the video.