Broadcasting bill 2023 sparks outcry over censorship and regulatory overlap

The Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023 , has faced significant criticism from multiple industry bodies and civil societies for a range of issues, as outlined in documents recently released by the digital rights organization , Internet Freedom Foundation.

The bill has been faulted for excessive reliance on delegated legislation, unclear definitions, the establishment of a pre-censorship regime through content pre-certification, and failure to differentiate between streaming services and traditional broadcasters.

The comments, submitted to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) in response to the November 2023 version of the bill, reflect widespread concern.

DIGIPUB, a coalition of digital media organizations formed in response to the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021, which mandated a self-regulatory body for news publishers, has urged the MIB to withdraw the bill entirely.

They, along with the News Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA), criticized the bill’s ambiguous definitions, particularly Clause 20, which could potentially encompass anyone disseminating news online, including individuals.

Both organizations expressed concerns about the Broadcast Advisory Council’s potential for granting “unchecked censorship powers” to the executive and the impact of the Content Evaluation Committee (CEC) on pre-censorship.

NBDA also argued that Over-the-Top (OTT) services and digital transmissions should not be classified as “broadcasting services” as they are already regulated under IT Rules, leading to concerns about overlapping regulations across different ministries.

The Indian Newspaper Society called for exemptions for websites and news portals run by registered newspaper publishers, noting that these often serve as extensions of traditional publications and use the same journalistic resources.

Access Now, along with DIGIPUB, NBDA, and other organizations like Broadband India Forum (BIF) and the US-India Business Council (USIBC), raised concerns about the bill’s over-reliance on delegated legislation.

Access Now defends and extends the digital rights of users at risk around the world. By combining direct technical support, comprehensive policy engagement, global advocacy, grassroots grantmaking, legal interventions, and convenings such as RightsCon, they fight for human rights in the digital age.

Access Now criticized the bill for imposing unreasonable limits on free expression, enhancing government control over online content without independent oversight, and significantly curbing press freedom.

The bill’s provisions were said to grant the central government excessive power to restrict content on unspecified grounds, which Access Now and others argued should not apply to news and current affairs content.

The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) highlighted the bill’s overlap with the IT Rules, 2021, suggesting that it could stifle investment and innovation in the OTT sector.

IAMAI also criticized the CEC for imposing a heavy compliance burden and undermining the self-regulatory mechanisms established by the IT Rules. USIBC and BIF echoed these concerns, describing the CEC as overly prescriptive and advocating for its removal.

Access Now, along with USIBC, IAMAI, and BIF, argued that internet-based services should not require registration or licensing, differentiating them from traditional broadcasting services.

They contended that streaming platforms, operating at the “application layer” of the internet rather than the “network layer,” are fundamentally different from broadcasting networks. This distinction was reportedly incorporated into the 2024 bill draft shared with selected stakeholders in July.

USIBC and IAMAI also suggested that the bill should follow, rather than precede, the National Broadcasting Policy, which TRAI is consulting on at the MIB’s recommendation.

They and other groups, including NBDA, CCAOI, and BIF, called for incorporating the outcomes of various consultations on related issues before proceeding with the legislation.

They expressed concerns about the sector’s heavy-handed and overly prescriptive regulation and the bill’s failure to clarify TRAI’s jurisdiction.

Moreover, USIBC, IAMAI, and BIF pointed out that the bill does not address issues related to ease of doing business in the broadcasting sector.

USIBC specifically recommended excluding audio-only services from the bill’s scope, as pre-certification via the CEC would be impractical for music streaming services, a concern previously raised by Spotify during stakeholder meetings.

Additional comments came from entities like DeepStrat, CIVIS, and Yuva Jagran Manch. An individual response, whose details were redacted, suggested halting corporate ownership of media companies and emphasized the positive role of digital news media in journalism.

The individual also proposed revamping Doordarshan with a model similar to the BBC to increase viewership and make it a comprehensive platform for news, web series, and movies.