Justice Prathiba M Singh of Delhi High Court recuses from hearing plea by Shehla Rashid against Zee News, Sudhir Chaudhary

Justice Prathiba M Singh of Delhi High Court on Thursday recused herself from hearing a petition filed by former JNU Student Union leader Shehla Rashid seeking an apology from Zee News and journalist Sudhir Chaudhary for airing a news programme against her. .Another bench of the High Court had earlier issued notice to Chaudhary, Zee News, and the News Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA) on the plea. Zee's counsel mentioned the matter today before Justice Singh, seeking more time to file a reply. However, the judge said that she cannot hear the case and that the same would be listed before another bench. .Rashid had approached the High Court in relation to an order passed by News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) in April 2022.In its order, NBDSA had directed Zee News to take down links of a show about Rashid since it lacked objectivity, impartiality and presented, only one side of the story. The show aired on November 30, 2020, wherein the channel interviewed Rashid’s father and allegedly made allegations against her.Rashid then wrote to the NBDSA arguing that the programme had insinuated that she is involved in “anti-national activities” and was “funding terror”.As the NBDSA ordered Zee to take down the show, Rashid expressed her displeasure at the fact that the association had not directed the channel to issue an apology to her.Rashid, therefore, moved the High Court seeking modification of the NBDSA order, so that Zee and Chaudhary may be directed to issue an unambiguous and unequivocal apology to her. Rashid has called for the apology to be broadcast during prime-time to mitigate the damage and prejudice caused to her dignity and reputation..In her plea, Rashid submitted that the videos of the broadcast were viewed by several people and received more than 3,800 reactions, besides being shared by more than 500 people.Thus, merely taking down the videos will unfortunately 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, the plea added.