Right-wing propaganda website OpIndia published an article on October 23, 2024, written by its editor-in-chief Nupur Jhunjhunwala Sharma. It alleged that legal news website Live Law had spread fake news in its reporting on the case of jailed student activist Sharjeel Imam. OpIndia claimed that Live Law had mentioned incorrect details regarding the case, accusing it of fabricating facts.
On October 22, 2024, Live Law had tweeted that the Supreme Court would hear a case involving the delay in the Delhi High Court deciding the bail plea of Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi Riots conspiracy case. The tweet also mentioned that the case would be heard by a bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. However, a few hours later, Live Law tweeted again, stating that the hearing had not taken place, and the next hearing was likely to occur on October 25, 2024.
Student activist #SharjeelImam‘s petition assailing delay in hearing of his bail plea in the Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy case not taken up today by the #SupremeCourt
Next hearing likely on Friday ie 25th October https://t.co/9tWYIYuE7Z
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) October 22, 2024
OpIndia, in response, published a report accusing Live Law of spreading false information. OpIndia claimed that no such hearing had been scheduled before the bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma and that Live Law had confused the hearing of a different petition involving Sharjeel Imam. The article suggested that another case, related to Imam’s bail, was being heard on October 22, but this was not the same case Live Law had reported on. OpIndia alleged that Live Law had fabricated details about the hearing and misrepresented the facts surrounding the case.
OpIndia in its article cited a case with diary number 4730/2020 which was listed for hearing on October 22, 2024, in Court No. 2 before Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar regarding clubbing of FIRs with another case of Sharjeel Imam and claimed that this was the same case that Live Law had tweeted about. OpIndia claimed that the information published by Live Law about the Delhi High Court’s delay in deciding Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case was blatantly false. It also stated that Live Law published incorrect information about the details of the case and about the judge hearing the case “specifically targeting Justice Bela Trivedi.”
Nupur Jhunjhunwala Sharma, OpIndia’s Editor-in-Chief, also took to social media platform X to accuse Live Law of spreading fake news about Sharjeel Imam’s hearing in the Supreme Court. She falsely claimed that Live Law had wrongly dragged Justice Bela Trivedi into the case even though she had no involvement.
MA Rashid’s LiveLaw spreads fake news about Sharjeel Imam hearing in SC, drags Justice Bela Trivedi in the case when she has nothing to do with it: Details
Here is how easy it was for @LiveLawIndia to publish the truth. They chose not to.
My report https://t.co/c0eGJEmZX3
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) October 23, 2024
In another tweet, Sharma shared a screenshot of another petition from the Supreme Court’s website to back up her claim and questioned how Justice Trivedi’s name was connected to the case.
Here is proof. All @LiveLawIndia, a supposed ‘law’ portal had to do was check Supreme Court listing. Where did Justice Bela Trivedi’s name come from? Was it fed up Kapil Sibal? Or someone else? And how did LiveLaw conclude it’s a bail hearing when it’s not? https://t.co/SCIj0kV1kF pic.twitter.com/NxdD0qpdRO
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) October 23, 2024
Fact Check
Alt News checked the Daily Cause List from October 22, 2024 on the website of the Supreme Court. We found 2 cause lists:
When Alt News reviewed the main and supplementary cause lists from October 22, 2024, we found that Sharjeel Imam’s petitions were indeed listed in both. One petition (Diary No. 4730/2020) was scheduled for a hearing in Court No. 2 before Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar, as mentioned by OpIndia. However, another petition by Sharjeel Imam (Case No. 422/2024) also appeared in the supplementary cause list, set for a hearing in Court No. 13 on the same day, before Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma. This is the case that Live Law had accurately tweeted about, even though OpIndia had falsely claimed the report was fake by only referencing the first case.
On October 22, 2024, in Court No. 13, the bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma stated that they were unable to hear the matter due to time constraints. The court then ordered the case to be rescheduled for October 25, 2024. This confirms that Live Law’s reporting was entirely factual.
Manu Sebastian, the managing editor of Live Law, responded on social media, describing OpIndia’s article as malicious, factually incorrect, and a misrepresentation of court proceedings. He emphasised that OpIndia had failed to mention that both petitions involving Sharjeel Imam were listed on the same day, before different benches of the Supreme Court. Sebastian accused OpIndia of presenting a false narrative, misleading readers by omitting critical details about the petition heard by Justice Bela Trivedi’s bench. He also noted that OpIndia had given a communal spin to the matter by selectively highlighting the identity of one of Live Law’s founders.
OpIndia @OpIndia_com has published an article written by its Chief Editor Nupur Sharma @UnSubtleDesi targeting LiveLaw @LiveLawIndia. The article is malicious, factually wrong & a blatant misrepresentation of the court proceedings, which can amount to contempt of court. Thread pic.twitter.com/7Rn7b8aAtP
— Manu Sebastian (@manuvichar) October 23, 2024
OpIndia has since updated its article. The original headline, which accused Live Law of spreading fake news and dragging Justice Bela Trivedi into a case where she had no involvement, has been altered. Mentions of Justice Trivedi have been removed in the revised title.
Apart from this, OpIndia’s initial article had listed four points from Live Law’s tweets, claiming three of them were completely false. However, this section has also been removed in the updated version of the article.
To sum it up, OpIndia falsely accused Live Law of publishing fake news regarding Sharjeel Imam’s case in the Supreme Court. OpIndia’s so-called fact check talked about another petition listed the same day. Live Law’s report on the case was factual, and the accusations made by OpIndia are misleading and incorrect.
Independent journalism that speaks truth to power and is free of corporate and political control is possible only when people start contributing towards the same. Please consider donating towards this endeavour to fight fake news and misinformation.
