Parliamentary panel seeks common media council
HT first reported on January 31 about the discussions by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey-led panel proposing such a Media Council.
The parliamentary standing committee on communications and information technology has formally recommended that the ministry of information and broadcasting (MIB) should consider creating a Media Council to bring different forms of media including print, broadcast and digital under one umbrella body for better coordination and implementation of governing laws.
HT first reported on January 31 about the discussions by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey-led panel proposing such a Media Council.
Even before the committee’s formal recommendation on Friday, MIB has discussed the formation of such a body, modelled after the Press Council of India (PCI), a person aware of the matter said.
In its eleventh demand for grants for MIB report tabled in parliament, the committee also recommended that the government should consider bringing MIB, IT ministry and department of telecommunications under one umbrella to address regulatory issues stemming from technological convergence
The committee noted that the MIB aims to expand its regulatory scope through the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, which would shift oversight of over-the-top (OTT) content and digital news from the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, to MIB as per the allocation of business. The MIB told the panel that it does not intend to introduce the bill in the current parliamentary session.
Currently, streaming platforms such as Netflix and JioHotstar, along with digital news publishers, are regulated by Part III of the IT Rules, 2021. These rules have been challenged by multiple news organisations, arguing that Part III exceeds the scope of the IT Act. Some provisions, including the three-tier grievance redressal mechanism, were stayed by the Bombay and Madras High Courts, though self-regulatory bodies formed under the rules continue to function, and MIB still issues blocking orders under Rules 15 and 16.
MIB discussing expanding PCI into a broader media council
According to a person aware of the matter, the MIB has internally discussed expanding the scope of PCI into a broader Media Council through either new legislation or amendments to existing laws. This body would oversee news content across print, television, and digital platforms, with distinct verticals handling different media formats. Each vertical could have its own monitoring and enforcement mechanisms .
The MCI has been discussed as an independent body outside of the MIB, like the PCI is, but the government wants to retain the power to issue emergency blocking orders to news publishers for six reasons related to national security and public order. There has been discussion that these emergency blocking orders issued to news publishers could require confirmation from the Media Council within a prescribed time frame, similar to how emergency blocking under Section 69A of the IT Act is reviewed.
The MIB is also considering granting the Media Council the authority to issue mandatory takedown notices to intermediaries for unlawful news content under Indian laws including Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, and Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.
The amendments or a new law could create norms and codes for news on different kinds of media and prescribe financial penalties for their violation. The MCI could address complaints about violations of these news-related codes and norms.
MIB discussing bringing non-news digital content under CTN Act
Outside of news regulation through MCI, MIB has been discussing oversight of non-news (entertainment) content on streaming (OTT) platforms and audiovisual social media accounts with followers greater than a prescribed threshold.
Two ideas --- involving the inclusion of these two categories of content within the scope of the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 --- have been discussed.
First, the current programme and advertising codes could be applied to these two categories of content. Second, a differentiated programme code could be created for each media platform depending on the specific concerns while maintaining a uniform advertising code across all media platforms.
For non-news content, adherence to the programme and advertising codes would be the responsibility of the relevant streaming platform or the social media platform, MIB has discussed.
For non-news content too, the government has considered retaining emergency blocking powers, with final orders issued by an inter-departmental committee within a set time frame.
To handle content violations of non-news content, MIB has discussed keeping the current three-tier grievance redressal mechanism under IT Rules Part III. State governments and law enforcement agencies may also retain their existing ability to issue mandatory takedown notices. MIB is also discussing graded financial penalties for code violations, applicable to broadcasters, publishers, advertisers, and intermediaries.
The MIB has discussed that user generated content on intermediaries should continue to be regulated by MeitY under IT Rules, 2021. It is not clear what will be left for MeitY to regulate if non-news content is also regulated by MIB through an amended CTN Act.
Another chapter in convergence debate
The debate over regulatory convergence is not new. In 2023, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) sought public input on whether telecom services (carriage) and broadcasting services (content) should be governed by a unified regulator, considering the changing technological landscape. TRAI also explored whether such a regulator should oversee OTT services including streaming platforms (Netflix) and communication platforms (WhatsApp). Apart from telcos, civil society and other industries including broadcasters, news publishers and technology companies batted against such convergence.