The organisation says the programme titled ‘Kalicharan Maharaj Vs Char Maulana… Hinduon ki Lynching Par Visphotic Bahas’ is a ‘textbook violation’ of broadcast ethics
NEW DELHI – A complaint has been filed against Zee News over its January 1 prime-time broadcast titled ‘Kalicharan Maharaj Vs Char Maulana… Hinduon ki Lynching Par Visphotic Bahas’ on the alleged lynching of Hindus.
The complaint has been filed by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) at the News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) against “a communalised televised spectacle designed to inflame anti-Muslim sentiment” and a “textbook violation” of broadcast ethics.
CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of hate speech, so that the bigots propagating venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice.
According to CJP’s complaint, the show in question surrounded the tragic incidents of violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, which Zee News used as a pretext to incite communal tension in the country. “It is important to mention that while the professional identities of the Muslim panellists—including Islamic scholars and researchers—were acknowledged in the introductions, the channel systematically reduced them to a religious monolith by utilising the sensationalist and confrontational title ‘Kalicharan Maharaj Vs 4 Maulana,’ the complaint said.
The complaint argues that the format, framing, selection of panellists, choice of questions, and on-screen graphics collectively abandoned journalistic neutrality and elevated unverified conspiracy-laden assertions into national discourse without editorial scrutiny. CJP has asserted that the show not only misrepresented facts regarding violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, but also used such incidents as a pretext to frame Indian Muslims as a civilisational threat.
According to the complaint, the broadcast opened by linking violence against Hindus in Bangladesh with the purported rise of “Islamist aggression” globally. However, instead of exploring geopolitical circumstances or international minority protections, the show allegedly shifted its focus toward a domestic communal binary. The choice to present the debate as ‘Kalicharan Maharaj vs 4 Maulana’ formed the foundation of this shift, CJP states.
Despite introducing the Muslim speakers as an Islamic scholar, political analyst, researcher, and commentator, the anchor and graphics repeatedly referred to them simply as “Maulanas,” thus transforming a discussion that could have been political or geopolitical into a religious contest. CJP describes this as “misclassification for ideological staging,” intended to create a perception of siege, in which a solitary Hindu ascetic was portrayed as battling an institutionalised Muslim clerical bloc.
The title and the overarching theme of the show were entirely misleading, communal, and provocative in nature, CJP said.
It identified the segment between timestamps 03:47 and 05:50 as particularly problematic. According to the complaint, Kalicharan Maharaj used this interval to allege that Qur’anic verses command violence against non-Muslims, that a “Ghazwa-e-Hind” war was imminent, and that Indian Muslims were celebrating terrorism, foreign defeats, and the “endangerment of Hindus.”
The complaint stated that the host refrained from interrupting or contextualising these claims, nor did he correct doctrinal misinterpretations or historical inaccuracies. This lack of intervention, CJP argues, amounted to “editorial acquiescence” and violated NBDSA’s guidelines on anchor conduct, which require moderators to prevent communal provocation and ensure fair debate.
The four Muslim panellists reportedly condemned violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, referenced Qur’anic principles of humanity, and questioned the logic of demographic threat narratives. However, the complaint contended that these rebuttals received limited airtime, often collapsed mid-sentence, or were reframed by the anchor to suit the original premise.
This, CJP argues, transformed the broadcast from a debate into a performance of polarisation, where countervailing facts were permitted only insofar as they sustained spectacle.
The complaint stresses that broadcasters hold heightened responsibility during prime-time debates, which significantly influence public discourse and Zee News neglected established standards requiring accuracy, fairness, and avoidance of communal colour, thereby violating both NBDSA guidelines and the basic tenets of responsible media conduct.
In its prayer for relief, CJP has requested corrective action, including takedown of the broadcast, broadcast of a public apology, and institutional compliance directives aimed at preventing recurrence of such programming. The petition argues that accountability is essential not merely for redress but for restoring ethical norms within India’s broadcast ecosystem.
A complaint was addressed to Zee News on January 7, seeking a response and corrective action. As the broadcaster did not engage, CJP subsequently escalated the case to the NBDSA.
