Devil in the details: Breaking down the Draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill

In an era marked by rapid digital transformation, the Indian government has embarked on a journey to revamp the regulatory landscape for the broadcasting sector through the proposed Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023. This ambitious draft, released for public consultation in November 2023, seeks to modernise the regulatory framework, expanding its purview from traditional television services to include emerging digital platforms like Over-The-Top (OTT) services. However, beneath the surface of progress lies a network of complexities and concerns that demand careful scrutiny.


The fundamental premise of the draft bill is to create a unified legal framework encompassing a wide spectrum of broadcasting services. This extension includes traditional television services, cable and satellite operators, and, notably, the burgeoning realm of OTT platforms. While the aspiration to adapt regulations to the evolving dynamics of the sector is commendable, the devil, as they say, lies in the details.

Mandatory Registration And Inclusion Of OTT Platforms
One of the key provisions mandates the formal registration of all broadcasting network operators, ranging from cable and satellite operators to OTT service providers. While the intention is to bring all players under a single regulatory umbrella, the diversity of these platforms demands discerning regulations that acknowledge their distinctive nature.

The inclusion of OTT platforms signifies a recognition of their increasing prominence. However, the challenge lies in applying a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to entities with diverse business models, content delivery mechanisms, and subscriber bases. Attempting to regulate platforms that operate on the internet, such as Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) and OTT services, adds a layer of complexity to an already elaborate regulatory landscape.

Content Evaluation Committees And Self-Regulation
The establishment of Content Evaluation Committees (CECs) is presented as a mechanism for encouraging self-regulation among broadcasters and network operators. While the concept of self-regulation is laudable, the devilish details, once again, raise concerns. The requirement for broadcasters to adhere to a program code and gain certification from the CEC introduces an element of subjectivity that could impede creative expression and journalistic freedom.

The proposed three-tier regulatory structure, involving self-regulation, self-regulatory organisations, and a Broadcast Advisory Council, seems comprehensive on paper. However, the devil lurks in the specifics of these structures, especially the potential for government influence and control. The appointment of a grievance redressal officer and the reliance on self-regulatory organisations and an advisory council inherently carry the risk of regulatory capture or biassed decision-making.

Concerns Raised By Digital Rights Advocates
The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has rightfully raised concerns about the draft bill’s potential impact on digital freedom. The parallels drawn between the proposed codes for digital platforms and those applicable to cable TV raise alarms. The fear of increased censorship and self-censorship due to potential over-compliance highlights the delicate balance that must be struck between regulatory oversight and preserving freedom of expression.

The IFF’s emphasis on the potential consequences for online free speech, journalistic expression, and artistic creativity is not unfounded. The broad discretionary powers bestowed upon the government in terms of punishments create an environment where platforms may opt for caution, leading to a chilling effect on content creation.

Delegation Of Rule-Making Powers And Lack Of Specificity
Another aspect that merits critical examination is the excessive delegation of rule-making powers to the Centre, leaving numerous provisions to be determined at a later stage. The draft bill’s reliance on phrases like “as may be prescribed” and “as notified by the (Union) Government” raises concerns about arbitrary rule-making, lack of clarity, and potential abuse of power.

The absence of specificity and safeguards against arbitrary rule-making leaves stakeholders, including broadcasters and network operators, in a state of uncertainty. This uncertainty, spanning over 70 pages of the draft, introduces an element of unpredictability that could stifle innovation and hinder the growth of the broadcasting industry.

Impact On Digital Platforms
Technology policy experts and legal professionals have rightly pointed out the potential ramifications of applying a program code to all online content creators. While the intention may be to ensure content quality, the subjective nature of terms like ‘good taste’ and ‘decency’ introduces ambiguity. The dynamic nature of the digital space, thriving on creativity and diverse expression, could face constraints under a regulatory framework that leans toward conservatism.

The proposed self-regulatory mechanism, while carrying the promise of accountability, introduces challenges related to mandatory disclosures. Requiring the initiation of the Centre and the public disclosure of personal details of CEC members may inadvertently put individuals at risk. Striking a balance between accountability and the protection of individual privacy becomes paramount in navigating these uncharted regulatory waters.

Impact On Individual Journalists And Social Media Platforms
Clause 20 of the bill extends its regulatory reach to individuals disseminating news and current affairs content through social media platforms like YouTube, WhatsApp, and Telegram channels. Under this provision, anyone engaging in systematic business, professional, or commercial activity through online papers, news portals, websites, or social media intermediaries is required to adhere to the Programme Code and Advertisement Code.

This expansion implies that not only streaming platforms but also independent and citizen journalists utilising platforms like YouTube or Instagram for news dissemination will be subject to the same obligations as OTT broadcasters. The broad scope of the bill raises questions about the potential impact on occasional content posting and even the status of journalists on platforms like Twitter.

To Sum It Up
As India navigates the contours of its broadcasting regulation through the draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, it is imperative to critically examine the complexities and potential pitfalls. While the government’s intention to modernise regulations and keep pace with industry changes can be seen as a forward step, a delicate balance must be maintained between oversight and the preservation of democratic values.

The concerns raised by digital rights advocates, legal professionals, and technology policy experts emphasises the need for a more detailed and transparent approach. Striking the right balance involves crafting regulations that acknowledge the diversity of broadcasting platforms, uphold freedom of expression, and provide clarity and specificity to prevent unintended consequences. As stakeholders engage in the ongoing public consultation, a collaborative effort is required to refine the draft bill, ensuring that the regulatory framework not only keeps pace with industry dynamics but also fosters innovation, creativity, and the democratic spirit of the digital age.

END OF ARTICLE