SEBI grants NOC for long. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Biased language

Use of value-laden or promotional wording that implicitly frames the subject positively without balancing context.

Phrases such as: - "long-awaited initial public offering (IPO)" - "clearing a key regulatory hurdle that had delayed the listing for several years" - "a significant milestone in NSE’s growth journey" - "the beginning of a new phase of value creation for all stakeholders" - "reinforces confidence in NSE’s role as an integral pillar of the Indian economy and a cornerstone of the country’s capital markets." These phrases, especially when not clearly attributed as opinion, frame the IPO and NSE in a strongly positive, almost promotional light.

4 suggestions

Attribute all evaluative language clearly as opinion or quotation, e.g., "NSE Chairperson Srinivas Injeti described the approval as 'a significant milestone in NSE’s growth journey'" instead of presenting it as a neutral fact.

Replace or qualify loaded terms with neutral wording, e.g., change "long-awaited" to "planned" or "proposed" unless you specify by whom it was long-awaited (investors, management, etc.).

Clarify that statements about being an "integral pillar" and "cornerstone" are the chairperson’s characterizations, not the article’s assessment, e.g., "Injeti said the approval, in his view, reinforces confidence in NSE’s role..."

Add brief balancing context, such as potential risks, concerns, or neutral background (e.g., past delays, regulatory issues) to offset the purely positive framing.

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant contextual details that would help readers fully understand the implications of the event.

The article mentions that the IPO was "long-awaited" and that there were delays "for several years" but does not explain: - Why the listing was delayed. - What conditions SEBI imposed, if any. - Any concerns or criticisms related to the IPO. This omission does not fabricate facts but limits the reader’s ability to assess the significance and potential downsides of the approval.

4 suggestions

Briefly describe the reasons for the earlier delays (e.g., regulatory concerns, governance issues, market conditions) if publicly known.

Mention any conditions or caveats attached to SEBI’s NOC, if applicable.

Include at least one neutral or critical perspective (e.g., from independent analysts or investor advocates) on the IPO’s implications for investors and the market.

Clarify that details are limited if information is not yet public, e.g., "SEBI has not publicly disclosed detailed conditions attached to the NOC."

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting primarily one side’s perspective without comparable representation of other relevant viewpoints.

The article quotes only the NSE Chairperson and focuses on the company’s positive framing of the IPO as a "significant milestone" and "new phase of value creation." SEBI’s role is described only as granting approval, and there is no input from regulators, independent analysts, or investor representatives.

4 suggestions

Add a short comment or explanation from SEBI (if available) about the rationale for granting the NOC and any safeguards for investors.

Include a neutral or analytical perspective from an independent market analyst on what the IPO could mean for the market and for investors.

If no other comments are available, explicitly state that only NSE has commented so far, e.g., "As of now, only NSE has publicly commented on the approval."

Reduce paraphrasing of the company’s promotional language and keep it clearly within quotation marks as the company’s view.

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally positive or aspirational language to create a favorable impression rather than relying solely on neutral facts.

Expressions like "growth journey," "new phase of value creation for all stakeholders," and "integral pillar of the Indian economy" are emotionally and aspirationally framed, encouraging readers to feel optimistic about NSE and the IPO without presenting evidence.

3 suggestions

Keep such language strictly as direct quotes and clearly label them as the chairperson’s views, not factual conclusions.

Balance emotional or aspirational claims with concrete, verifiable information (e.g., expected offer size, use of proceeds, governance measures).

Avoid broad, unverifiable claims like "for all stakeholders" unless supported by specific details or data, or rephrase to more cautious language such as "NSE expects the IPO to create value for its stakeholders."