Delhi HC’s bench recuses from hearing plea by Shehla Rashid against Zee News, Sudhir Chaudhary
Rashid's complaint lodged with the News Broadcasters and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) was against the show televised on November 30, 2020, showing her father making wild allegations against her, her sister and her mother during the interview.
New Delhi: A single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court on Thursday recused from hearing a plea by JNU alumna Shehla Rashid seeking “unambiguous and unequivocal” apology from Zee News and its then anchor concerning to a programme broadcasted by the channel in November 2020.
Rashid’s complaint lodged with the News Broadcasters and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) was against the show televised on November 30, 2020, showing her father making wild allegations against her, her sister and her mother during the interview.
Zee’s counsel mentioned the matter on Thursday before Justice Pratibha M. Singh, seeking more time to file a reply. Singh, however, recused herself from hearing it.
Rashid, who has sought apology from channel’s former anchor Sudhir Chaudhary, had approached the High Court against an order passed by the NBDSA in April 2022, wherein it had directed Zee News to take down links of a show about her since it lacked objectivity, impartiality and presented, only one side of the story.
She had also written to the NBDSA contending that the programme had implied that she is involved in “anti-national activities” and was “funding terror”.
After the NBDSA ordered the news channel to take down the show, she was not quite satisfied that the association did not direct the Zee News to issue an apology to her post which, she moved the High Court seeking modification of the NBDSA order seeking court’s direction to Zee and Chaudhary to issue an unambiguous and unequivocal apology to her.
To alleviate the damage caused to her reputation, Rashid has called for the apology to be broadcast during prime-time as taking down the videos “will not affect the impact that the broadcast had on the public nor remotely restore the dignity and reputation of the petitioner, which was damaged by the broadcast.”