The government’s much-anticipated Broadcast Bill, which was expected to overhaul content regulation across television and streaming platforms, has been in limbo for a year since the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) quietly withdrew its draft last August.
While the first version of the draft was made public, the second draft was circulated only among a select group of stakeholders, adding to the secrecy and confusion. With no official clarity since then, industry players remain uncertain whether the Bill has been shelved for good or is being reworked behind closed doors. The silence has sparked speculation, frustration, and cautious optimism, as stakeholders weigh whether the government’s delay signals a rethink of its regulatory ambitions—or an indefinite pause.
Stakeholders divided between caution and hope
Industry voices acknowledge that the Bill, despite its flaws, is too important to ignore. A broadcast expert observed, “The Broadcast Bill got backseat as there was concern from all. The government had said it will be redone taking care of stakeholder concerns. We are yet to see a revised edition. It will come up again surely and will take care of industry concerns. The industry is continuing its business, trying to work on self-regulation as it knows if self-regulation does not get stronger, it will be the government or a court verdict that brings in the Bill faster—which may not be to their liking.”
Another industry expert stressed its urgency, and said, “It is important for the industry as it captures all the futuristic technological upgradation in a more effective way. It is urgently required for the industry to be balanced.”
Adding to this, a senior media consultant remarked, “Every major investment decision in broadcasting, from infrastructure upgrades to content strategy, is being held in abeyance as we wait for clarity on the Broadcast Bill. The longer it takes, the more uncertainty grows, and that is not good for a sector that thrives on stability.”
The secrecy around the second draft
A few days after distributing copies of the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024 to stakeholders, the MIB had abruptly asked for their return. The second draft, unlike the first, was never released publicly. Copies were handed only to a select group of broadcasters, cable operators and other stakeholders.
This exclusion of key stakeholders—particularly digital content creators—had raised concerns about transparency.
YouTubers like Meghnad S, Dhruv Rathee, Abhisar Sharma, and others voiced unease over the opaque consultation process. The DIGIPUB News India Foundation, which represents over 90 digital news media entities, also wrote to Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, requesting a formal meeting to address concerns related to the digital news ecosystem.
What changed in the revised draft
The second draft of the Bill attempted to address some criticisms of the first version.
Among the major changes:
-
Exemptions from mandatory certification: News and current affairs programmes, educational programmes, live events, children’s animations, and other specified categories were exempted from mandatory approval by Content Evaluation Committees (CECs). This was seen as a step away from excessive government control and censorship fears.
-
Clearer categorisation of OTT platforms: Online Curated Content Providers (OCCPs), or OTT platforms, were officially classified as “internet broadcasting networks.”
-
Introduction of new definitions: Terms like “advertisement intermediary,” “Digital News Broadcaster,” and “Ground-based broadcaster” were introduced, broadening the scope of regulation.
-
Expanded reach: The draft included individual users systematically disseminating news and current affairs for business purposes, thus potentially bringing independent digital content creators under its ambit.
-
Harsher penalties: General contraventions carried fines of ?10 lakh for the first violation and ?50 lakh for repeat offences. Subscriber record breaches attracted fines up to ?2.5 crore.
Despite these revisions, the Bill retained contentious provisions such as criminal penalties for individuals, mandatory disclosure of CEC member details, and the possibility of uniform regulation across television and online platforms.
Concerns across the industry
Legal and industry experts feared that further delays in the Bill could create deeper uncertainty. They had said that one of the most debated issues was the attempt to include social media influencers under the definition of broadcasters. They noted that this could explain the ministry’s decision to recall the draft and reconsider its provisions.
Experts also said that prolonged process is not unusual for legislations that touch upon constitutional freedoms and have wide industry impact. “Since discussions now pertain not just to conventional broadcasting but also digital/online platforms including content creators, it is bound to take time,” an industry expert said.
For now, the industry remains caught between waiting and self-regulating. While some view the delay as a sign that the government is carefully reassessing its approach, others worry it signals an indefinite stall that leaves the future of broadcasting regulation and key industry decisions uncertain.
.jpg)
