John Brittas 
During the election season, the ruling party’s boastful “chaar sau paar” slogan was met with a reality check: Indian democracy is far from dead. However, the ruling government has resorted to more insidious methods instead of introspection. The Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill is a clear attempt to stifle digital news curation and OTT media.
Reportedly, a revised draft of the Bill has been quietly circulated among select industry insiders, reminiscent of Bangladesh’s draconian ‘Digital Security Act,’ which sanctions arrests of so-called offenders without a warrant.
The principle behind the Bill
The Broadcasting Bill seeks to regulate OTT and social media content, such as YouTube, through vague definitions. Unlike traditional TV, these platforms operate on a “pull demand” mechanism, where viewers actively choose content to watch on their personal devices in their private spaces. In the Kamlesh Vaswani vs Union of India case, the Court refrained from banning pornography viewing, arguing that it would amount to “moral policing of what goes on in one’s bedroom,” violating the fundamental right to personal liberty. Similarly, this Bill is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny.
The scope of control and its impracticality
The Bill’s definitions of “broadcasters” are so broad that they could include everyone — from the prime minister with 100 million X followers to individual YouTubers like Dhruv Rathee. It also encompasses non-citizens involved in curating news or digital content. Once they reach a certain undisclosed threshold of viewership, all such broadcasters are required to notify the Central government.
The big question is: how does the government plan to enforce these registration norms, especially for non-citizens? The Bill mandates that OTT platforms must comply with the programme and advertising codes notified by the Centre. Ironically, the same content could be available on other intermediary platforms and websites, which are not subject to these codes.
Impact on freedom of speech
Some provisions of the Bill conflict with Article 19 of the Constitution, potentially creating an Emergency-like situation. Even without this Bill, India’s press freedom ranking has already dropped to 159 out of 180 countries.
For the first time in Indian television history, a draft Bill envisages general entertainment and documentary channels to pre-certify programmes before it is aired. This is unprecedented. Channels will have to form Content Evaluation Committees for each language (in addition to the existing Standard & Practice mechanism under the three-tier self-regulatory model). This is really bizarre as both inside the parliament and before judiciary the current government always maintained that the three-tier self-regulatory model was working well. Pre-certification, if retained, will be a blow to the independent and creative expressions, and one could very well imagine what would be the predicament of a documentary like the one telecast on the BBC based on the Gujarat riots.
Also read: Watch | Digipub on Broadcasting Bill: Regulation or Total Control?
The high cost of compliance
The proposed three-tier self-regulatory mechanism imposes an unfair and expensive burden on small news outlets and content creators. Compliance with paperwork, the appointment of a grievance officer, and the formation of a Self Evaluation Committee — all regardless of the size of the broadcaster — are disproportionate and stifling. This will hinder competition, stifle innovation, and dampen the growth of alternative media, acting as a barrier to entry and negating the democratising potential of the internet.
Ultimately, these costs will likely be passed on to consumers. This could curtail the free and accessible flow of information, silencing pluralistic views and opinions that differ from those of the Centre.
A chilling effect on free speech
The Bill grants the Central Government sweeping powers, including the ability to confiscate broadcasting equipment and conduct raids without warrants. The recommendations of the Business Advisory Council can be overridden by the Centre, and most self-regulatory bodies are populated by members of the executive. Any content the government perceives as a threat to “public interest” could be deemed a violation, leading to self-censorship among broadcasters to avoid hefty fines and penal enforcement. This would further shrink the space for dissent and diverse viewpoints.
The 1995 Supreme Court judgment in the case between the Union of India and the Cricket Association of Bengal emphasised that “the right of free speech and expression includes the right to receive and impart information.” For a democracy to thrive, citizens must have access to a plurality of views and opinions. A monopoly — whether by the State or an individual — on the medium of information is detrimental to democracy. If this Bill becomes law, an informed citizenry will become a distant dream.
Why context matters
Most legacy news outlets have been corporatised, often serving as mouthpieces for those in power. Ironically, in our democracy, the mainstream narrative is controlled by the so-called “Godi Media”. By framing the current administration as “Modi 3.0” instead of “Modi 240,” TV channels have manufactured a narrative of continuity and centralised power around the prime minister. In this Kafkaesque maze of control, the election results underscored the importance of digital platforms.
Also read: Overarching Definitions, Advisory Council’s Power: What Stakeholders Said on Draft Broadcasting Bill
Let’s face it — the rise of individual news curators and content creators on social media has significantly influenced public opinion. The widespread accessibility of information via mobile phones has empowered voters. With YouTube’s national audience nearing 46 million and videos by creators like Dhruv Rathee garnering 27 million views, it’s clear that young voters are turning away from legacy media.
These platforms don’t operate in a regulatory vacuum; internal mechanisms exist for content evaluation, and legal recourse is available for defamation and other issues. However, the Bill’s excessive delegation of powers and reliance on future rule-making by the government, coupled with ex-ante censorship, pose a serious threat to democracy. Political satire, among other content, might need to be certified and could be subject to restrictions. Controlling the narrative and minimising checks and balances is advantageous for a dictatorial ruler, but we are a democratic nation and should act like one.
The executive may have learned how to “handle the media better,” but there is still a lesson to be learned from the fate of those who enforced Bangladesh’s Digital Security Act.
John Brittas is a Member of Parliament.