Follow nationalizer on

NDTV , sheetal and my questions










” We do understand and appreciate the Fact that he has right to protest and speak his mind, He punched me on the face when I was trying to rell him that he can make his point on air in the next audience round.”

My questions—

  1. He has the right to protest, and he protested.
  2. He did not protest to get his voice aired in ndtv show, he protestd because Barkha is allegedly involved in the 2G scams, and he was questioning her right to take advantage of the anti corruption drive launchd by Anna Hazare.
  3. No one will punch anyone without provocation, we must hear from him what was the provocation ? (also read


“This option is being considered since he has now taken to maligning me and my organisation unnecessarily

Malign ? He was talking about Radia episode, and could ndtv give a satisfactory explanation to our doubt regarding “what should I tell them” ? How come talking about barkha radia tapes is maligning ndtv ? No one has denied the authenticity of tapes. So do not threaten, we also have the capacity to have lawyers and physically defend ourself.


One Comment on “NDTV , sheetal and my questions”

  1. anon_lawyer says:

    Hi, a couple of comments, on why i think the strategy and the contents of the letter are egregious

    1) The intention of NDTV seems to be to intimidate rather than to actually proceed with legal action. What gives away their bluff is:
    a. they have not filed a any police complaint till date.
    b. records may show that there was not even a 100 call at the time of the alleged incident
    c. even if a complaint is subsequently filed, there is considerable delay which puts into question the alleged physical violence in the first place
    d. usually when such incidents are reported, the police takes the victim to a nearby hospital to draw-up a MLC (Medico-Legal Certificate) where a doctor can attest to the bruise or the injury. That is seriously doubtful now, alognwith the entire incident.

    2) Why I say their intention is to intimidate is due to:
    a. the complaint being in the form of a letter rather than a legal notice. It is not written by a lawyer and merely narrates some alleged facts. The letter is not even written on a NDTV letterhead. This simply shows they are not quite serious about taking it up through the police.
    b. one can notice that the letter has been written not to the accused assailant but to a Head of Department/Lecturer at a university where the accused assailant is taking a course in journalism. The intention is quite clearly to build pressure through an academic enquiry on the alleged assailant. This also shows that NDTV is not confident of its case through filing a police report, and is resorting to an academic-displinary enquiry/forum where the standards of evidence are weaker and where its influence as a media entity may determine the result. The act of writing the letter to the institute is in this respect similar to the targeting of IMB by IIPM students threatening to burn their IBM laptops when an article was written by an IBM employee about certain irregularities at IIPM. IIPM in this case knew it did not have the law on its side and so it chose to go with a system of private adjudication, in such cases, the pressure which can be built on your adversary is higher and the results are more direct and immediate.
    c. the entire issue of “maligning me and my organization unnecessarily” is entirely bogus. There are facts in the public domain which entitle a valid, even if a minority opinion on the nature of protest by the alleged assailant. Also one may notice, even if there is any “maligning” it is the subject of a different and distinct offence of “defamation”, and cannot be clubbed together with the alleged assault. By writing that they were not contemplating a legal action on the alleged assualt but are now considering it due to this “maligning”, seriously throws into doubt any assault itself.

    All in all, this is an attempt at censorship of speech and should be strongly suggested. Though this is not a legal opinion it appears there is no wrongdoing as per law.

Your views please...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s