By NL Team

The News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) has directed Aaj Tak to edit a broadcast in which its former anchor, Sudhir Chaudhary, amplified claims that the Taj Mahal was originally a Hindu Shiva temple, reversing its earlier decision that found no violation of broadcasting norms.

NBDSA chairperson Justice AK Sikri (Retd.) passed this order on May 28, following a review application filed by the complainant, Indrajeet Ghorpade, against the episode that aired on November 29, 2024.

The complaint

Ghorpade had originally filed his complaint in December 2024, arguing that the broadcast presented a one-sided historical narrative focused solely on the alleged destruction of Hindu temples by Muslim rulers. 

Most critically, he pointed out that Chaudhary had amplified the claim that the Taj Mahal was once a Hindu Shiva temple (originally called “Tejo Mahalay”), a claim the Archaeological Survey of India has explicitly rejected. The order notes that Ghorpade had argued the anchor “further amplified the baseless claim that the Taj Mahal was once a Hindu temple, ignoring the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) clarification that the Taj Mahal is a tomb and was not built on a Hindu temple.” He pointed out that India Today’s own 2018 report had debunked this exact claim under the headline: “Taj Mahal is a tomb, not a Shiva temple: ASI.”

The complainant further argued that the broadcast’s overall tone carried what he described as “thinly veiled dog whistles against the Muslim community” while arguing that the narrative “appeared to connect the actions of Muslim rulers from centuries ago with the Muslim community in contemporary India, fostering division.”

The channel’s response

Aaj Tak defended the broadcast, arguing it was presented in a documentary style as a “post-mortem” or historical analysis, drawing on sources such as ASI reports and published books. The channel maintained it was merely presenting claims made by third parties, not endorsing them, and that the broadcast served the public interest by encouraging historical understanding.

In its written response, the channel was dismissive of the complaint itself. It argued that the complainant’s own admission that he “cannot independently verify all the claims made in the report regarding Muslim places of worship allegedly being Hindu or Jain temples” undermined his objections, and that his complaint had “notably failed to cite any sources” by which the anchor’s cited sources “can be rebutted, let alone challenged.”

This story was originally published in newslaundry.com. Read the full story here.