Draft Broadcast Bill: Think-tank seeks clarity to avoid vague interpretations

New Delhi: A public policy think-tank on Wednesday raised its concerns regarding the proposed draft of the Broadcasting Bill, 2024 that proposes a comprehensive regulatory framework for various mediums including traditional broadcasters, digital news outlets, over-the-top (OTT) services, and social media intermediaries.
The think-tank, which did not want to be named, said that the Bill appears to restrict free expression and regulate news dissemination by extending its reach to influencers and digital platform content. 

However, several aspects of the bill remain ambiguous, particularly regarding the Information and Broadcasting Ministry’s authority to regulate social media intermediaries, it said.

Currently regulated by the IT Ministry, such intermediaries comply with due diligences mandated under the IT Rules of 2021 to enjoy immunity concerning content shared by users, including OTT platforms and news broadcasters on their platform. 

“New mandates under the Broadcasting framework will lead to duplication of compliances,” the think-tank added.

“The reporting on the upcoming Broadcasting Framework has raised significant concerns regarding its ambiguity. Firstly, there is confusion about the extent to which intermediaries regulated under the IT Act by MEITY are being regulated by MIB, leading to potential duplicity of compliance. Secondly, the threshold for individuals who publish content on social media platforms and the impact of the Program Code on their work remains unclear. Lastly, the independence and functioning of the Broadcast Advisory Council, which sits at the top tier of the three-tier co-regulatory model, is left to the rules, leading to uncertainty about the implications of the framework,” the think-tank highlighted.

Additionally, the Bill’s attempt to merge internet-based and traditional media under a single legislative framework, combined with vague provisions, poses risks to free speech and could stifle digital innovation, expressed the think-tank.

The think-tank pointed out that several sections of the Draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024 are notably ambiguous. 

For instance, Section 2(1)(aii) defines an advertisement intermediary as an entity primarily involved in facilitating the purchase or sale of ad space on the internet or placing ads on online platforms without personally endorsing the content. 

“However, the categorisation of such intermediaries may pose regulatory challenges. Platforms like Google Ads or Facebook Ads Manager could fall under this category, necessitating clarification of their roles and responsibilities, particularly in terms of content liability and regulatory compliance,” the think-tank explained. 

“The lack of definition regarding endorsement by intermediaries could lead to compliance and enforcement ambiguities,” it added.

Section 2(m) defines a digital news broadcaster or publisher of news and current affairs as an individual or entity distributing such content via online platforms like news portals, websites, social media intermediaries, or similar channels as part of a structured business, professional, or commercial activity, excluding replica e-papers. 

The think-tank opined that this broad definition may impose regulatory responsibilities on individual news influencers on platforms like Twitter or YouTube, potentially leading to stricter regulations and oversight, which could affect free expression and content reporting on social media. 

“Compliance with traditional broadcasting standards might be particularly burdensome for individual content creators and smaller digital news platforms,” it said.

The bill also aims to regulate OTT services, as outlined in Section 2(bb), which states that OTT broadcasting services provide curated content (excluding news and current affairs) that can be accessed on-demand or live through various channels, including websites and social media platforms, as part of a structured business, professional, or commercial activity. 

“OTT broadcasters who currently comply with Part III of the IT Rules would be required to comply with the nuanced Program Code under the Broadcasting Framework leading to renewed bureaucratic challenges for major OTT platforms such as Netflix or Amazon Prime Video,” the think-tank said.

“Smaller content creators on platforms like Twitch or YouTube Live might also be classified as OTT broadcasters, subjecting them to similar regulations and potentially hindering content delivery and innovation, which could be detrimental to new market entrants,” it added.

The undefined ‘prescribed limit’ for notifying the central government adds to the uncertainty for content creators regarding compliance thresholds, the think-tank emphasised.

Finally, Section 24 of the Bill mandates that every broadcaster establish a Content Evaluation Committee (CEC) for self-certification of content according to program and advertisement codes, with an exemption for digital news. 

While this exemption acknowledges the dynamic nature of news, the requirement for self-certification by CECs across different broadcasters raises concerns about the consistency and objectivity of content evaluation, the think-tank said adding that the bill lacks clear guidelines for ensuring uniformity and impartiality across CECs, potentially leading to varied interpretations and enforcement of content standards.