New draft broadcasting bill raises accountability, censorship concerns

At stake is not only the freedom of speech, but also conflicts around the liabilities that ‘individuals’ may face with such a law in its present form.

The new draft, a copy of which was seen by Mint, brings individuals, defined in the bill as ‘digital news broadcasters’, under the same umbrella of law as publications and broadcasters—which have, for long, had a set of responsibilities and code of conduct that were so far defined under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.

Also Read: Coming law could tag you a digital news broadcaster

As a consequence of this, individuals posting “systematic" content that qualifies under news and current affairs on social media are liable to be directly regulated by the Centre—a move that many consultants and stakeholders fear could undermine free speech in the world’s largest democracy and one of the fastest-growing economies. Further, it may also create industry-wide confusion around whom the onus of content moderation lies with.

What experts say

A senior consultant working with multiple top global technology firms in India said on conditions of anonymity, “We must be very careful on how legal overreach impacts innovation and public discourse. News and current affairs, which digital news broadcasters are supposed to cover, if they come under the ambit of the broadcasting bill, can be very wide and far-reaching. The definition of ‘systematic’ content creators can also be ambiguous—at least in the present form; how do you categorically establish that a creator is voicing their opinion in an orchestrated manner? This is subjective."

Also Read | India’s Digital Competition Bill: Better alternatives exist

To be sure, this is not the final version of the upcoming law for broadcasting—which will replace the outgoing Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. A public consultation phase is expected for the present draft. Following these consultations, the draft may undergo further change, after which the bill will be tabled in parliament.

The ambiguity of the definitions, said three tech policy consultants including the one cited above, must be improved upon in the long run. “If the Centre’s intention is to ensure curtailing of online abuse and misuse of a public platform to voice opinions, such definitions must be improved upon—which a public consultation process will vitally help," one of the three consultants said.

On 27 July, Union IT, information and broadcasting minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said in the Rajya Sabha that the draft was opened for public consultation “for feedback and comments."

An emailed query to the ministry of information and broadcasting remained unanswered till press time.

Kazim Rizvi, founding director of public policy think-tank, The Dialogue, said that such a regulatory mechanism is “unprecedented"—which is the key factor that most of the industry has so far underlined. As such, the move could be detrimental to the overall creator economy.

“Our present legal framework is robust enough to regulate online content. Modern-day content creation demands agile and nimble regulation, without reducing the volume and pace at which content is published and distributed. This ensures that the internet drives information at speed, which helps small businesses and internet entrepreneurs. This creator economy is generating employment through monetization on social media platforms, and is a growing industry—as of 2024, India, with around 100 million creators in the organised influencer marketing sector, may surpass ₹3,000 crore ($350 million) in revenue this fiscal," Rizvi said.

Also Read: Online platforms bank on ‘sachet culture’ to sell digital content

Influencers' concerns

The bill has created a furore among influencers on social media platforms, who have called it out for conflict of interest, regulatory overreach and its impact on free speech. On social media platform X (formerly Twitter), political commentator S. Meghnad underlined the lack of public consultation on the bill as yet, and highlighted how free speech from prominent public commentators could be stifled significantly. Multiple fellow creators on X, Instagram and YouTube, each of whom have 100,000 or more followers on such platforms, have raised concerns.

Calling the bill “a very worrisome legislation," Mishi Choudhary, founder of legal and policy think-tank, Software Freedom Law Centre, said, “This bill uses vague terms, and leaves most of the power to the executive in the form of 'as may be prescribed' directions. The bundling of individual content creators with other disparate broadcasters underscores the intent to cast a wide net to stifle emerging free expression."

Broadcasting regulations, Rizvi added, are “supposed to regulate infrastructure entities with substantial resources."

Also Read: Draft broadcast bill sparks concerns around creative freedom

“While influencers with a large following and strong content monetization may have the resources to comply, a big chunk of the creator economy, that consists of small businesses, will find it burdensome. Further, the Supreme Court, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, emphasized the concept of ‘actual knowledge’ as a condition for intermediary liability. The IT Rules, 2021 have already expanded on the due diligence requirement beyond what was established in the Shreya Singhal case, mandating additional measures like the appointment of a Chief Compliance Officer. Therefore, the IT Act is sufficient to deal with the objectives of the proposed broadcasting regulations," he said.