Shahruk Ahmed Mazumdar*
“We cannot express our opinions because a law will soon regulate them.” This pessimistic line is whirling everywhere, especially among journalists, independent writers, and digital content creators. The Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024, was the current draft of the previous bill of 2023. While several people on social media had also been voicing their concern about certain reported provisions in the proposed law, the newly prepared bill was under stakeholders’ consultation. However, according to reports, the bill’s amended form had only been distributed to a small number of parties, who were bound by strong confidentiality agreements.
The 2024 Bill allegedly increased the scope of people and entities regulated under it, introduced ambiguous definitions for important provisions, and negatively affected online platform users, in addition to imposing compliance obligations on digital creators that affected their online freedom of speech and creative expression. However, it is reported that the bill has been withdrawn. Instead, the government has extended the deadline for feedback from the public on the draft bill until October 15. Although it is alleged that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) failed to respond to inquiries from interested parties about the bill’s modifications or the closed-door discussions, nor did it acknowledge the 2024 draft. The government has been working on a draft bill to replace the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, of 1995.
Under this bill, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had expanded regulations for independent content makers that cover news, produce, and distribute videos, and podcast on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter). People expressed concerns about the proposed bill’s potential for obfuscation and contrived confusion, as well as its objectivity and clarity in practice. It would instill fear in the writer since they would be afraid to express their criticism fairly regarding a specific program, scheme, or other government initiative. This would not give a favourable view of a democratic country like India. If it had passed, it would only be at the price of people’s freedom of speech and expression. Because it will limit the ability to present the other viewpoint, thus establishing an unfair advantage of partial information. In terms of media regulation, for example, this law might have had a significant influence on independent journalists, commentators, content creators, and social media users. A comprehensive public consultation with all stakeholders is required; this will help to streamline the process.
In the 2024 draft, a new category of “digital news broadcaster” or “publisher of news and current affairs content” was introduced, defined as “any person who broadcasts news and current affairs programme through an online newspaper, news portal, website, social media intermediaries, or similar platforms as a ‘systematic activity’ as a part of a systematic business, professional, or commercial activity but excluding replica e-papers.” While “systematic” activity was ambiguously defined as any structured or organised action that had an aspect of planning, method, continuity, or persistence, it allowed the executive enormous power to interpret as it sees fit. The withdrawn bill grants the government the authority to deliberately target and stifle creative voices that acquire momentum through virality, allowing them to hold platforms and artistes responsible at their discretion.
In 2021, the Bombay and Madras High Courts stayed rules 9(1) and 9(3) of the IT Rules 2021 that mandate digital news media and online publishers to adhere to the “Code of Ethics” as prescribed by the rules., citing these provisions as infringing upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech. If this bill had been passed, it would have created problems for those, who have questioned the government using the immediate and quick dissemination of digital platforms like YouTube.
According to the bill, an individual who had been identified as a digital news broadcaster must inform the appropriate ministry of their operations and presence. There must be one or more content evaluation committees, and the identities of their members must be made available to the government. Any such creator who does not comply would have paid a fine. Nonetheless, certain exemptions were outlined so that the government may exempt a particular class of participants or a group to prevent actual hardship.
It appears that one of the reasons for such big adjustments was to govern several independent content makers who played an important role in information distribution during this year’s Lok Sabha elections. This raises the question of whether such a tactic is effective enough to mute Indians’ growing dissatisfaction with rising unemployment, caste, and gender-based crimes, and widening wealth disparities. Notably, the draft bill stated that, provided they follow specific guidelines established by the government, online intermediaries like Facebook, YouTube, and X were exempted from responsibility for content created by third parties.
Recently, the Uttar Pradesh government announced a new digital media strategy that includes financial rewards for influencers who promote and popularise the state government’s policies and initiatives. These laws, whether by the central or state governments, have raised concerns, such as if they are intended for a select group of creators and media firms that support the government’s ideological objectives and can promote its narrative through digital means or is it a step to silence critics of government excess and promote pro-party activities? The fact that the bill is at the consultation stage means that there is no timeframe for finalising and implementing it into law. It might take several months depending on the amount of alteration required, necessitating consensus among stakeholders and lawmakers.
A genuine expectation exists that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting will conduct the consultation process transparently, considering the criticism it received for the opaque way the now-withdrawn bill was disseminated selectively. In that regard, each discussion with a larger group is a positive step. In addition, the government must refrain from adding superfluous clauses to the bill.
*Shahruk Ahmed Mazumdar is an independent columnist from Assam and can be reached at: shahruktechnical@gmail.com and X/Twitter @Shahrukhahmedsk
—–
Have you liked the news article?