New Delhi: The Internet Freedom Foundation has published a summary of comments submitted by stakeholders during the public consultation on the draft Broadcasting Bill, 2023, which reveal that many raised concerns about the future of the rights to free speech and information and press freedom.
The IFF was among organisations that submitted comments on the Bill, in December 2023.
The IFF accessed others’ comments from a response to a Right to Information request it had filed with the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The ministry initially told IFF that comments submitted by stakeholders cannot be disclosed without their consent as that would violate their privacy and intellectual property rights. However, the ministry also purportedly requested a sum of Rs. 934 from IFF to send it copies of the 417 pages of comments it could share with them. IFF notes that it found that the MIB did not share all comments based on the fact that several comments were made publicly available by the organisations themselves – but did not find their way to the RTI packet IFF received.
Access Now
The global non-profit organisation Access Now which focuses on digital civil rights said in its comments that the Bill threatens fundamental rights such as free speech, expression, access to information, and press freedom. The group raised the fact that the uniform regulation of internet-based content, including OTT platforms and social media providers of news and current affairs, would pose problems and also impact news media’s ability to report freely, leading to self-censorship.
Additionally, Access Now was alarmed by the Union government’s extensive powers to monitor and restrict content. They pointed out that the tripartite regulatory framework in Clause 24 of the Broadcasting Bill, 2023, resembles the controversial IT Rules of 2021, which is being challenged in the courts, including by The Wire.
Access Now has also highlighted the lack of independence of the Broadcast Advisory Council, which could amplify government censorship.
It has recommended the complete withdrawal of the draft Bill.
Also read: The Broadcasting Bill Broadly Casts the Citizen as a Subject
Civis
The Civic Innovation Foundation’s non-profit platform Civis collected over 1900 feedback points through their website, analysed public discussions on social media platforms like YouTube, X and LinkedIn and conducted a sentiment analysis to gauge key concerns about the bill.
Civis highlighted the need for precise definitions in Clause 2 of the draft Bill, particularly for terms like ‘broadcasting’ and ‘broadcasting network,’ to avoid the whole gamut of digital content, such as independent digital creators, coming within its purview. They emphasised the importance of strengthening Clause 19, related to the Programme Code, to include safeguards for free speech and prevent indirect censorship.
Like Access Now, the organisation expressed concerns about the frameworks for the Broadcast Advisory Council and highlighted the need for independent oversight bodies, separate from government influence, for ensuring unbiased enforcement of the Bill’s provisions.
Deepstrat
The think-tank Deepstrat expressed concerns about the broad definitions of terms like “news and current affairs programs” and “OTT” in Section 2 of the Bill, calling for clearer definitions to avoid ambiguity and protect freedom of speech and expression.
The organisation emphasised the risks of granting regulators the power to censor online content and news, highlighting the need to protect the fundamental right of free speech. It also noted that Clause 27 of the Bill, which outlines the composition of the BAC, lacks balanced representation and raised concerns about its independence and impartiality due to the predominance of government members.
Internet and Mobile Association of India
IAMAI also expressed concerns around Clause 2 and its sub-clauses which give a wide definition for ‘broadcasting networks’ and ‘broadcasting network operators’. They also said that “OTT” platforms are already regulated under the IT Rules, 2021. Their suggestion was that OTT platforms be kept outside the purview of the Bill.
The IFF notes that the organisation also raised concerns about the Union government’s ability to bypass the first two tiers of grievance redressal and refer matters to the BAC which implies that they have overbroad powers and this may further restrict the rights provided by Article 19 of the Constitution to publish content as a form of freedom of speech and expression and right to carry on trade or occupation.
IAMAI compared the overbearing Bill with light touch regulatory practices of other foreign jurisdictions like Australia, Japan and other countries.
CCAOI
The trust CCAOI raised concerns regarding several provisions in the Bill. Like others, CCAOI also raised concerns on the BAC’s regulatory ambit. It also highlighted the problems of clubbing regulation of conventional broadcasters with OTT broadcasting services and recommended separate regulations for the different services and industries.
DIGIPUB
The digital news media organisation DIGIPUB highlighted impediments in the consultation process, mainly the draft bill and its accompanying explanatory note being exclusively released in English, posing a linguistic barrier for public involvement, the IFF reported.
It observed that the Bill exposes those disseminating news that may be perceived as unfavourable by the government to significant risk.
Indian Newspaper Society
In addition to similar concerns as the ones above, the Indian Newspaper Society noted that articles published on the online news portals are identical to the ones published in printed newspapers and the only difference could be that these portals operate in languages distinct from newspaper publications.
