The New Draft Broadcast Bill Could Have A Chilling Effect On Journalistic Freedom Of Expression

The recently proposed Draft Broadcast Bill is feared to be a chain which shall bind those, who may speak their minds freely and without censor. The bill was intended to regulate new-age broadcasting mediums, however, bringing ‘news-broadcasting’ social media intermediaries within its ambit has ushered this debate of whether the bill is another ploy to curb freedom of expression.

In November 2023 the government proposed a new Broadcasting Bill, which was painted as an initiative to regulate the new-age broadcasting mediums and the content which these platforms could release for their viewers. Some experts say that in these times, when in the name of creative discretion – violence and oversexualisation is glorified, this Bill is a welcome change. The draft Bill mandates, in clear words, that only the content which adheres to ‘public morality’ and does not offend ‘public decency’ shall be released.

For now let us assume that this flawed reasoning and vague standards are indeed a noble effort by the government, still the loosely-worded provisions and its unnecessary overarching reach paints a fearsome picture – that ultimately the government intermediaries may decide the content we are allowed to watch.


The Draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023 has been introduced to retire its, three decades old, predecessor – Cable Television Networks (Regulations) Act, 1995 which is the governing statute to regulate cable networks and the content put forth by them. But akin to everything else, our way of consuming content too has changed drastically. With the advent of OTT (Over-The-Top) and On-demand media platforms, watching entertainment/informative media has become simpler, and naturally cable networks have become more or less redundant.

Thus, the Act has been put forth to govern OTT and any similar platforms, along with the old-broadcasting mediums, so that all the content which is released in public domain is compliant with a set ‘Programme Code’. Although these new-age broadcasting platforms are already supervised by the Information and Technology Rules, 2021, yet the government felt the need to have a single code under which all broadcasting avenues are ‘organised’ and ‘structurally governed’. Which begs a question – Is the Bill really an effort to organise and govern, or is it another bogus addition in a long line of statutes purported to curtail freedom of speech.


The problem, which has evolved into a dreadful notion – that the Draft Bill curbs freedom of speech, lies in conflicting interpretation of S.2(y)Definitions and S.20 News and Current Affairs Programme of the Draft Broadcast Bill. The former section is tasked with defining what ‘OTT platforms’ shall mean, and in doing so the clause makes an exception wherein it states – that social media intermediaries or a user of such intermediary shall not be included within ‘OTT Broadcasting Services’. It may seem at first that the government aptly understood the plight of small digital content creators and gave them this relief, however, it is on reading the latter section that perhaps a more alarming intention is unearthed.

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

Freedom of Press

S.20 of the draft Broadcast Bill says that – Any person who broadcasts news and current affairs through an online paper, website, or social media; Such a person is bound to follow the guidelines as are set by the Central Government and thus they come within the purview of the proposed Act. To many experts it seems absurd, that on one hand the Draft Bill grants a blanket exclusion to social media content and its creators, but on the other hand it categorically includes ‘news-broadcasting’ social media channels.

It is no news that this government has been alleged, time and again, to curtail freedom of speech and expression. Not long ago it was sedition which was wielded as a sword to cut down voices which made too much unwanted noise, and now it is a string of statutes which shall do the job – The Telecommunications Act 2023, Information and Technology Rules 2021, and now this Draft Broadcast Bill.

Now since all social media channels which broadcasts news and current affair programmes as a means of business have been included within the purview of the Draft Bill, it is expected, rather mandated that they shall comply with a ‘Programme Code’. As is envisaged by S.19(1) of the Broadcasting Services Bill – that any programme which is transmitted on any of the broadcasting platforms shall be in conformity with the ‘Programme Code’.

It is these two words – ‘Programme Code’ which has the legal fraternity and many social media journalists on the edge. And yes these are merely words, for there exists no Programme Code as of yet, and perhaps that is what makes the whole scheme indeed very frightening. The only ‘Programme Code’ which is in force contemporarily is one which was notified by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) in 1994, under the Cable Television Network Rules.

Now whether the broadcasting channels have to follow the old ‘Programme Code’ – which has many contentious clauses, or will there be a new code that remains unclear. What is clear though that the government has absolute power to form the ‘Programme Code’ as it sees fit, and not just one code, it may form different code for different broadcasting mediums – S.19(3) of the bill. Thus, soon enough we may see only what the government may want us to see.


With having unrestricted power in forming the ‘Programme Code’ the government can decide what kind of content will us viewers be allowed to watch or read. The code will apply to not just movies and web-shows on our Netflix, Prime or Disney+ Hotstar accounts but also to every person, journalist or not, who shares any news programme in public domain. The term news programmes have been afforded a vast definition by S.2(v) of the draft bill – it shall include any audio, visual, or live performance, analysis of any recent event of socio-political, economical or cultural nature.

Tejasi Panjiar and Prateek Waghre from the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) characterize the clause as “overbroad,” contending that it could potentially yield far-reaching implications for independent journalists. These individuals heavily depend on digital platforms, including social media, to disseminate news that might be perceived as disagreeable by the government.

Although it would be too soon to affirm that the government has any nefarious motive to propose this bill, but what can be said conclusively is that this legislation is filled with sections and clauses which gives the government unbridled autocratic power. The ‘Programme Code’ problem is just the tip of the iceberg. There is another compliance issue in the Draft bill – as dictated by S.24(2), every broadcaster shall constitute a Content Evaluation Committee (CEC), whose job would be to categorise content into different segments. This becomes a problem for both small digital ‘news-broadcasters’ and giant OTT platforms.

Many digital creators usually either draft and put out their content themselves, or they are a part of a small team. In both cases constituting a CEC would be a hurdle that many creators might not overcome. This mandatory compliance might render  a lot of creators helpless and ultimately make them abandon their ventures. Does this not sound like curbing creative discretion. And for OTT platforms, experts believe, the draft bill may raise content costs as compliance with new regulations becomes mandatory. These added expenses could be transferred to consumers, impacting both content affordability and variety.

Saying that the draft bill is a tool to curb freedom of expression could be a far stretch for now, but the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023 surely will have one effect – to burden the broadcasters with enough compliance requisites, that many creators and small OTT platforms will have to close their shops.


Nearly a decade ago, a very controversial movie (supposedly) was released in the theatres. It was the Amir Khan starrer PK. The movie was vehemently opposed and the All India Human Rights and Social Justice Front (AIHSJ) had even filled a petition against the movie and its filmmaker and demanded that the movie should be banned from theatres. They argued that the movie offended ‘public morality’ and threatened ‘public peace’. To this the Supreme Court replied – “Our society is a very mature society. Nobody will get agitated with it.”

The SC bench headed by Justice RM Lodha reprimanded such petitions and said – “If you don’t like something, don’t watch it. Any restrictions on filmmakers, sought by you, would affect their rights.”

When the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting proposed this bill, they said that the draft Act was an effort to regulate the OTT platforms and Other Media Programmes, because the shows and movies released on these platforms, more often than not, have hurt the cultural or religious sentiments of one community or the other.

If one were to observe closely, it would become clear that the petition filed by AIHSJ almost a decade ago, and the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023, although maybe different in form but are similar in substance. The draft bill too is a code which seeks to decide what we can and cannot watch.

Reiterating and adding on to the words of the honourable SC – Our society is mature. It can decide for itself what content should be consumed and what should be discarded. In the matters of Media, overregulation will always lead to a suppressed freedom of speech. Instead of minutely scrutinizing the ‘broadcasters’ the government shall endeavour to promote creative freedom by regulating the monopolies. Lastly, all that is left to be said is that maybe this is the first step on the right path, but still there’s a long road ahead before the draft bill can be enacted.

Author: Aryan Agarwal, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

List of References

1) Author – Madhur Sharma, New Draft Broadcast Bill Raises Fears For Independent Digital Media’s Freedom, Outlook India, Date of Publication – 27 Dec 2023.

2)  Programme and Advertising Code prescribed under Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, Issued by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

3) Draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023, Issued by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Date of Publication – 10 Nov 2023.,_2023.pdf

4) Author – Aditi Gupta, Will MIB’s draft broadcasting bill curtail creative freedom & raise costs?, exchange4Media, Date of Publication – 21 Nov 2023.

5) Author – Express News Service, No ban on PK, SC says ‘If you don’t like then don’t watch it’, The Indian Express, Date of Publication – 15 Aug 2014.

Leave a Reply



  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010