The broadcasting services regulation bill: A threat to digital freedom and innovation

The Indian government has laid the groundwork for a legislative change in recent weeks that can drastically change the digital media landscape of the nation. Concerns regarding the government’s growing interference with media freedom and online expression have been sparked by the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, which seeks to place news content creators, including digital platforms, under a strictly regulated regulatory framework. The measure runs the risk of choking India’s quickly developing digital media ecosystem, despite being hailed as an essential step to standardize and regulate broadcasting services. India, which has more than 500 million internet users and a growing economy of digital content creators, needs to be careful to strike a balance between regulation and the preservation of creativity and free speech.

The bill, first introduced by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in a bid to regulate content across both traditional and digital platforms, has long been a subject of public debate. It primarily focuses on bringing all forms of content from traditional television broadcasters to new-age YouTubers, podcasters, and other independent content creators under a comprehensive regulatory umbrella. While regulation is essential to ensure accountability in media practices, the bill, as it stands, presents several red flags that could have far-reaching implications for free expression, creativity, and the diverse media landscape in India. 

The bill’s too expansive measures, which could potentially subject even independent content creators to governmental scrutiny, are among its most controversial features. According to the measure, the government will play a major role in deciding what content is appropriate, giving authorities additional authority to censor and limit content as they see fit. This raises the very real risk of suppressing opinions that don’t fit into a predetermined narrative or whose subjects can be considered divisive in society or politics.

Content creators like Dhruv Rathee, Ravish Kumar, and Kunal Kamra played a vital role in discussing pressing issues such as electoral bonds, political transparency, and the government’s handling of key matters. These independent voices, often critical of the establishment, have offered a counter-narrative to mainstream media and have been instrumental in mobilizing public discourse on topics that traditional outlets often shy away from. Rathee’s videos on electoral bonds and their impact on transparency in political funding, Kumar’s investigative reporting on corruption, and Kamra’s satirical commentary have empowered millions of Indians to engage with politics in a more informed and critical manner. However, under the proposed bill, content creators who challenge the status quo may face undue restrictions and censorship, as the government could classify their work as “controversial” or “objectionable” content. The risk of stifling these voices could undermine the very democratic process by silencing individuals who are holding power to account and shaping a more transparent political environment.

Similar to previous censoring practices in the nation, the bill’s ambiguity about what qualifies as “objectionable” content leaves room for misuse and overreach. 

The Maharashtra government’s move to introduce the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act 2024 to categorize and target “urban Naxals” also adds to the growing concern about government overreach in content regulation and emphasizes the alarming trend of suppressing dissent. The protection of independent journalists and freedom of expression have been seriously called into question by this proposed law, which seeks to crack down on people and organizations thought to have ties to left-wing extremist movements. The bill could easily be used to target journalists, content creators, and activists whose work challenges the government narrative, labeling them as “anti-national” or “subversive” without clear evidence. Given how the phrase “urban Naxal” has historically been used to criticize and silence critics of the ruling party, this is especially troubling. Should such a bill be approved, it may create a risky precedent for other state governments to adopt similar measures to censor and threaten journalists and content producers who express divergent viewpoints. The Maharashtra Special Public Security Act 2024 could serve as a complementary tool in this broader strategy of curbing critical, leftist, and independent media voices, further consolidating power in the hands of the state while undermining the diversity of discourse essential to a functioning democracy. 

The case for regulation is not without merit, of course. With India’s rich culture, language, and sociopolitical dynamics, it is clear that certain safeguards are necessary to prevent harmful or misleading information. Any regulatory structure must, however, maintain a careful balance. What is concerning, though, is that the Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, as it stands now, strongly favors restrictive measures that could paralyze India’s rising content creator economy.

This concern is particularly poignant when examined through the lens of recent controversies surrounding online content. The recent debacle surrounding the popular comedy show India’s Got Latent is a case in point. The show, which aired on one of India’s top OTT platforms, sparked a massive uproar after certain comments made by prominent figures triggered legal action. The case highlights the dangers of excessive regulation in the digital sphere, even though the issue is still being worked out. The Supreme Court intervened to address concerns over the OTT platform’s compliance with regulations after the show’s controversy caught the public’s and the judiciary’s attention. Legal actions are necessary to guarantee the security and propriety of content, but they shouldn’t be used to restrict creative freedom or freedom of expression. 

Furthermore, there are other issues with the bill’s introduction at this time, when India’s digital economy is expected to grow significantly. From independent vloggers to small-scale production companies, the digital content creation industry has already experienced a surge in fresh voices. With millions of people in India making a living through digital platforms, these producers are the backbone of the nation’s quickly expanding digital economy. Over 400 million people in India are digital consumers, and the country’s digital economy plays a major role in job creation and GDP expansion, according to data from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. The very industry that has given so many people a means of subsistence may be in danger due to the Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill’s burdensome content requirements, particularly at a time when the nation is trying to strengthen its digital economy in the aftermath of the pandemic.

At the heart of this debate lies a critical question: How can the government regulate broadcasting services without undermining the freedoms that make India’s digital media landscape unique? The answer lies in creating a transparent, precise regulatory framework that promotes responsible content without encroaching on free expression. India must protect its digital creators from arbitrary censorship in the broadcasting industry and create an environment where innovation can thrive. 

While regulation of broadcasting services is undoubtedly necessary to maintain order and ensure ethical practices, the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, as it stands, poses a serious threat to the freedom and diversity that India’s digital media ecosystem has come to represent. The government must ensure that it balances safeguarding against harmful content and protecting the rights of creators and consumers. Only then can India continue to nurture its vibrant and diverse digital media landscape, fostering an environment of creativity, innovation, and expression.

^{The author is Jitendra Awhad, Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) MLA.}