The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s recent withdrawal of the draft Broadcasting Bill has raised several unanswered questions and concerns, particularly regarding the proposed regulation of independent news content creators on social media platforms. This move has stirred fears about the government’s potential overreach in controlling online content.
Amongst selected stakeholders, a secret draft of Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024 was floated. The immediate backlash to the draft came in form of criticism about attempts to classify independent content creators from platforms such as YouTube, Instagram, and X. This classification would lead to regulation as they are usually given under traditional news media.
The participants received an unexpected call from the government asking them to return one copy of the handouts they had been given out in July.
In an article published in X, the Ministry did not directly address the issue but referred instead to what happened from November last year. The discussions were ongoing and there was an extension of time for stakeholder comments until October 15th with plans for revisions after consultations. Any mention of the 2024 plan was explicitly omitted leading into a lot of confusion and speculation among the participants.
Many industry stakeholders were confused by this omission. They don’t know what implications they should be talking about if they enter the 2024 draft and do not get drafted into the first team. Additionally these concerns compounded a lack of transparency and thoughtfulness. A select few organizations got distributed with the 2024 plan, which they were told not share again while each.
The government’s statement suggests that stakeholders should revert to commenting on the 2023 draft, ignoring the significant changes proposed in the 2024 version. This approach has raised critical questions: how can stakeholders comment on provisions that were unique to the 2024 draft if they are not included in the 2023 draft? This discrepancy highlights the complexity and opacity of the government’s current consultation process.
A major driver behind the government’s proposed expansion of regulatory scope is believed to be the role played by independent content creators during the run-up to the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. According to a senior government official, these creators often produced sensational content about the government and its leaders, prompting the need for accountability measures to level the playing field between mainstream press and independent creators.
The now-withdrawn Bill sought to replace the 1995 Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act and address the legal framework for broadcasting, extending to OTT content and digital news. The 2024 draft broadened its focus significantly, proposing to regulate social media accounts and online video creators. It defined “digital news broadcasters” to include anyone who broadcasts news and current affairs content systematically, including those generating revenue through online platforms.
Such an extended definition could include people on YouTube, Instagram and X, who sell their content through advertisements or subscriptions. The draft permitted the government to stipulate subscriber or viewer thresholds for OTT broadcasters thus requiring them to register and conform to the program and advertisement code. Content creators would need a CEC and ensure it has diverse membership that must be shared with the government.
The creators will be limited to airing only CEC-certified programs, except for certain cases such as statutory bodies certified content already in existence; educational programmes; news; live events; children’s animations among others as identified by the Government.
Withdrawing the 2024 bill and reverting ministry back to consultative paper of 2023 without mentioning about the recent one has cast a lot of doubt and anxiety among online content creators in India regarding future regulatory landscape. The stakeholders are now left to sail these ambiguities awaiting a more open-ended inclusive consultation process
