Will resume protests if govt doesn't withdraw FIRs against protesters today: CJP

India TodayIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 854 days ago

The Chief Justice of India (CJI), Surya Kant, clarified that he was 'misquoted' regarding his comments on refusing to watch videos during a hearing related to protests by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). The CJI emphasized that the Supreme Court is always accessible to seekers of justice but requires proper legal procedures to be followed. He explained that the court cannot entertain every request and that formal petitions must be filed according to established protocols. The controversy arose after the CJI reportedly stated that the court does not have time to watch videos during hearings, leading to concerns about the court's openness to addressing urgent issues. The CJI reiterated that the court remains open to all but insists on adherence to procedural norms.

Bias read (Center): The article presents the CJI's clarification and explanation of his remarks without overtly favoring any side. It includes direct quotes from the CJI and provides context about the legal procedures and the nature of the controversy. There is no evident bias in the framing or sourcing, and the report

Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports the CJI's clarification regarding the refusal to list a petition and the context of the video-related discussion. It correctly explains the procedural aspects of the court's handling of the case. However, it doesn't provide full context about the CJP's allegations or t

Why objectivity (85): The article remains neutral, explaining the CJI's position without taking sides. It presents the CJI's statements and the lawyer's request objectively, without apparent bias.

Scroll.inIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 75yesterday

Rashtriya Janata Dal MP Manoj Kumar Jha has filed a petition with the Supreme Court requesting the registration of first information reports (FIRs) against police officers in Bihar who opened fire on protesters. The protests were organized in support of student demonstrations in Delhi demanding the resignation of then Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, who later stepped down. During these protests, several individuals were injured when police used force, including firing weapons, in districts like Siwan and Jehanabad. Jha's petition seeks legal action against the police officers involved, compensation for the injured, and transparency regarding the number of FIRs filed against protesters. In response, some police officers have been suspended, and the issue has drawn attention from the Supreme Court. The protests initially began in Delhi on June 6 and gained momentum after police actions on July 20, leading to nationwide participation.

Bias read (Center): The article presents the situation objectively, detailing both the actions taken by the protesters and the responses from the authorities. It includes multiple sources and does not exhibit clear bias towards either side. The framing remains neutral, focusing on the events and legal actions rather on

Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports that Manoj Kumar Jha moved the Supreme Court seeking FIRs against police officers in Bihar. However, it adds unverified context about the protests being in solidarity with Delhi's youth agitation and Dharmendra Pradhan's resignation, which are not present in the primar

Why objectivity (75): The article includes some subjective framing such as referring to the protests as 'youth agitation' and mentions Dharmendra Pradhan's resignation, which could imply bias. While it presents facts neutrally overall, the added context introduces potential bias.

The WireIndependentProgressiveFactual 65Objective 453 days ago

The article discusses the closure of a metro station near the Supreme Court in India, which has become a symbol of an undeclared emergency. This action was taken to prevent protests, indicating heightened tensions and potential restrictions on public gatherings. The closure raises concerns about civil liberties and the government's approach to managing dissent. It reflects broader issues related to governance and the balance between security and freedom of expression.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the closure of the metro station as a symbol of an 'undeclared emergency,' suggesting a critique of governmental actions and highlighting concerns over civil liberties and suppression of dissent. This framing implies a critical stance towards the government's handling of protests,

Why factuality (65): The article discusses the closure of a Supreme Court metro station as a symbol of India's 'undeclared emergency,' but lacks specific details or citations to support this claim. While there may be some consensus around the closure of the station due to security concerns, the characterization as an 'u

Why objectivity (45): The tone of the article is highly charged and symbolic, suggesting a political interpretation rather than presenting facts objectively. The phrase 'symbol of India's undeclared emergency' implies a broader political narrative, which introduces bias and emotional framing.

Times of IndiaIndependentCenter13 hr. ago

Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has instructed authorities to withdraw FIRs against students involved in protests supporting the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which demanded the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over an alleged exam paper leak. While the government announced this decision, no official communication has been released yet. Advocates representing affected students warn that ongoing FIRs create legal uncertainty, impacting students' opportunities for higher education abroad and competitive exams. Many students have received police notices, some despite not being named in the FIRs, leading to fears of detention and identity verification. Opposition parties, including the Congress, argue that FIRs against peaceful protesters are unjustified and that police often handle political agitations without criminal charges. Legal aid groups report over 1,000 student inquiries regarding the situation.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the controversy surrounding the withdrawal of FIRs against protesting students, citing both government actions and opposition concerns. It includes perspectives from various stakeholders—government officials, opposition leaders, legal advocates—and does not

India TodayIndependentProgressive14 hr. ago

The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), a group involved in recent protests, has threatened to resume nationwide demonstrations if the Indian government does not withdraw FIRs (First Information Reports) against protesters by today. The CJP accused the central government of breaking its promise made on July 25, where it assured that FIRs against peaceful protesters would be withdrawn. This comes after the Supreme Court issued an interim order directing states to release detained students under 18 and those without criminal records, and to avoid coercive actions in FIRs linked to the CJP-led protests. However, the CJP claims the order allows governments to continue existing FIRs and investigations, contradicting the earlier assurance. The CJP argues that the government failed to inform the Supreme Court about the commitment made to protesters and warns of renewed protests unless the FIRs are withdrawn and protesters are protected from punitive measures.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the CJP's concerns as legitimate grievances against the government and highlights perceived violations of promises made to protesters. The emphasis is on the government's alleged failure to uphold agreements and protect students, suggesting a left-leaning perspective that criticiz

The HinduIndependentConservative18 hr. ago

On July 28, 2026, the Supreme Court of India issued interim directions regarding ongoing protests linked to allegations of a NEET paper leak. The court instructed authorities not to take coercive actions against protesters while investigations continued, and to release individuals under 18 with no criminal records. It also emphasized the need to preserve digital evidence from the protests. In response, the BJP highlighted the court’s decision as balanced and sensitive, distinguishing between legitimate student protesters and those involved in violent acts such as arson. The party reiterated its stance that genuine protesters should be protected, while those responsible for violence should face legal consequences. The court also noted the importance of addressing concerns raised by families of injured police officers.

Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the Supreme Court's directive through the lens of the BJP's interpretation, emphasizing protection for 'genuine' protesters while condemning 'rioters.' This framing aligns with the party's ideological stance on law and order, suggesting a right-leaning emphasis on distinguishing '