In an era where digital content is burgeoning and creators are at the forefront of innovation and free speech, India’s revised Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024, threatens to undermine the very foundation of media freedom it purports to modernize. While the government presents this Bill as a necessary update to the antiquated Cable Television Networks Act of 1995, its sweeping regulatory scope raises significant concerns about censorship, innovation stifling, and government overreach.
An Overextended Definition of Broadcasters
One of the most controversial aspects of the Bill is its expansive definition of “digital news broadcasters.” It indiscriminately includes anyone engaged in “systematic” or “structured” activities related to news, encompassing everything from social media posts to podcasts and videos. The lack of a clear threshold for what constitutes a “digital news broadcaster” could mean that a small-time YouTuber offering tax advice or a journalist tweeting breaking news could find themselves subject to the same stringent regulations as major streaming platforms. This broad net risks stifling creativity and freedom of expression, particularly among independent creators and smaller news outlets who lack the resources to comply with onerous regulatory demands.
Intermediary Obligations: A Burden Shift
The Bill extends the definition of “intermediary” to include a wide range of digital platforms and obliges them to furnish data to the central government about digital content creators using their services. This not only places an enormous compliance burden on these intermediaries but also raises significant privacy concerns. By shifting the compliance responsibility from intermediaries to digital content creators and OTT services, the Bill may lead to increased costs and operational challenges for these platforms. It essentially forces them to act as watchdogs for government interests, potentially leading to self-censorship or a chilling effect on free expression.
Ashwini Vaishnaw introducing the Broadcast Bill (Source: Sansad TV)
Regulating Online Advertising: A Gray Area
The introduction of “advertising intermediaries” as a category responsible for overseeing digital ad spaces further complicates the regulatory landscape. While the Bill mandates adherence to an Advertising Code, it leaves vague the question of who is ultimately responsible for compliance—the platform, the intermediary, or the advertiser. This ambiguity can lead to legal uncertainties and could discourage advertisers and platforms from engaging in digital marketing activities, ultimately stifling innovation in the online advertising space.
Self-Regulation or Government Overreach?
While the Bill acknowledges the role of self-regulatory organisations, it introduces the concept of a government-appointed Broadcast Advisory Council to oversee complaints. This council’s powers to evaluate and decide on content issues could become a tool for government censorship, undermining the autonomy of digital platforms and creators. The Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI), has expressed concerns that these provisions could lead to excessive government control, effectively curtailing freedom of expression.
Global Overreach: Regulating the World
Another alarming feature of the Bill is its attempt to extend regulatory oversight beyond India’s borders. By excluding “an individual who is a citizen of India” from the definition of those regulated, it suggests an intention to monitor and control all global Internet users under this law. This extraterritorial application could strain India’s diplomatic relations and discourage international content creators and platforms from engaging with Indian audiences, thereby isolating the country’s digital landscape from global discourse.
Secretive Processes and Lack of Stakeholder Engagement
The secrecy surrounding the Bill’s revisions, where changes have reportedly been made without the involvement of civil society or media representatives, is a significant concern. The Internet Freedom Foundation has criticised the selective consultation process as exclusionary, raising red flags about the transparency and accountability of the legislative process. By sidelining critical stakeholders, the government risks crafting a law that is out of touch with the needs and realities of the digital media ecosystem.
Piracy Provisions and Redundant Regulations
The inclusion of piracy-related measures within the Bill, which should logically fall under the purview of the Copyright Act, suggests an overextension of regulatory authority. Furthermore, the overlap with provisions in the IT Act regarding due diligence for online intermediaries adds layers of bureaucracy without clear benefits. Instead of creating new and potentially redundant regulatory frameworks, the government should focus on strengthening existing laws and ensuring they are enforced effectively.
India’s Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024, represents a regressive step in the evolution of digital media. Its broad definitions, unclear regulations, and potential for government overreach threaten to curtail the freedoms that have allowed digital media to thrive. The government must reconsider this Bill, engage in extensive stakeholder consultations, and ensure that any new regulations balance innovation and free expression with legitimate governance needs. The future of India’s digital landscape depends on policies that empower rather than inhibit its creators and platforms.
Read Also:
UP Proposes Tough ‘Love Jihad’ Law, Life Imprisonment for Offenders
