Broadcasting Bill 2024 Pulled Back — Here Are The Nuances You May Have Missed

The Modi government has withdrawn the latest draft of the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024. It was shared with selected stakeholders for feedback.

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) said it is working on a new draft. Meanwhile, it also set a 15 October 2024 deadline for feedback on the November 2023 draft version.

The 2024 version, which seeks to replace the 1995 Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, was in controversy for allegations of having a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

The now-repealed draft fundamentally focusses on extending the regulatory net to the content being shared, watched, read, and listened to on the internet. To enable this, the government inserted new terms and re-defined some old ones.

The 2024 draft introduced a new category called ‘digital news broadcaster (DNB)’ or ‘publisher of news and current affairs content’. Both of these interchangeable terms refer to any person who broadcasts news and current affairs through an online paper, news portal, website, social media intermediary, or other similar medium.

The definition of ‘news and current affairs content’ includes newly received or noteworthy audio, visual, or audio-visual programmes or live programmes, including analysis.

The inclusion of "other similar medium" gives discretionary power to authorities, which is important in the wake of new technological domains that may emerge under the aegis of artificial intelligence.

For critics, the bill is yet another instance of the government trying to trample freedom of expression.

The most contentious part is the inclusion of individual content creators. Under the bill, medical professionals giving advice, travel bloggers and vloggers, tax consultants, or even fitness influencers suggesting methods to cure new diseases (like Covid) can be monitored.

DNBs are required to inform MIB about the nature of their work. They have been further asked to be more responsible by forming a content evaluation committee (CEC). 

For CEC, the government recommends that it be more diverse by including individuals with knowledge of different social groups, women, child welfare, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and minorities.

These groups are believed to be more at risk of harm from any mischievous activity, which is probably why the government also wants the names of CEC members disclosed.

CEC will check whether the broadcast in question is in accordance with the programme code or not. The government has not yet defined any programme code for the purpose of the bill, which leaves DNBs at its mercy.

Another contention is that a three-tier governance structure is above CEC. Apart from CEC, a grievance redressal officer (GRO) also needs to be appointed by DNBs to hear complaints contravening programme and advertisement codes. A suitable mechanism is also sought from them.

To oversee the above process, a broadcast advisory committee (BAC) will be formed by the government. It will have the power to address complaints emanating from solutions given by CEC or GRO. BAC may form a review panel for this purpose.

Various penal provisions, including up to Rs 2.5 crore and seizure and confiscation of equipment by ‘any’ inspector, are also there.

Experts believe that multiple tiers of regulation combined with hefty penalties will make it difficult for new current affairs enthusiasts to stand on their own. 

These kinds of programmes on YouTube, Spotify, or any social media intermediary exist because many intelligent people could not get recognition in traditional media, which is controlled by big money, power hierarchy, ideology, and its constrained definitions.

When the government asks individual channels to appoint CEC or GRO, what it essentially says is that individual content creators earn at par with big channels, which may be true in rare cases but certainly fails the ‘observed reality test’ for more than 95 per cent of creators. 

The regulatory burden will be too much for a new creator and will definitely act as an inhibiting factor. Essentially, such indirect censorship will turn internet spaces into a power game where only people with big money and power will collaborate and kill competition. That defeats the principle behind the internet.

It will be much better if the government itself takes on the responsibility of forming the regulating bodies.

One relief from the bill is that the government has limited the applicability of the bill by stating that the aforementioned activities must be part of systematic business, professional, or commercial activity. 

So, if any person can prove that he or she broadcasts news and current affairs not as a professional or commercial business, he or she will not fall under the ambit of the bill and is free to act irresponsibly. 

Practically speaking, this is a big limitation since any YouTube or Spotify creator can say that they do analysis as some sort of passion and not any commercial or professional activities. Just like we have standup comedians who do comedy after office hours, we can have analysts who prepare for their commentary during their office hours and take the mike in the evening.

Apart from that, the draft also has provisions for encouraging and facilitating innovation. It protects content creators by strengthening anti-piracy and criminalising it, as well as asking the government to form a task force against it.

Moreover, a provision for a regulatory sandbox has also been provided for testing innovation and technological advancement in broadcasting. Some provisions of the bill will be relaxed.