These laws are likely to adversely impact media professionals and social media users, potentially subjecting them to a formidable array of harsh legal processes and stringent bureaucratic measures. Consequently, media entities and content-creators may face severe hardships when confronted with the combined might of the enforcement of these laws
By Naren Singh Rao
The draft of the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024, which seeks to supersede the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995, is marred by substantial flaws across multiple aspects. It comprises several clauses that present a substantive threat to freedom of speech and expression, as well as the independence of the media. Indeed, these provisions egregiously contravene the seminal democratic principles reflected in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which uphold the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
The draft defines news and current affairs in opaque, sweeping and open-ended terms. With this, the government seems to bring every possible media and online content within the ambit of its surveillance, and direct control.
The government’s anti-democratic approach is manifestly exemplified by the process with which it is introducing the present draft of the bill. Instead of following the long-standing democratic convention of publicly sharing the draft for consultation, it has been selectively disclosed to handpicked ‘stakeholders’, reportedly under the condition that they do not share its contents further.
The grossly undemocratic level of secrecy is further manifested by the inclusion of a unique watermark on each page of the draft, intended to trace any potential leaks. This level of watertight secrecy in the legislative process is quite unprecedented in the history of law-making in India.
It is evident that the crux of the draft essentially aims at increasing governmental control over online media content and its creators. This could only lead to heightened surveillance and a definite shift towards authoritative governance in India.
The government’s forceful attempts to push the bill demonstrate its potential, malignant intent. One of its key aims appeared to be, to classify independent online media content-creators at par with big, legacy news media.
The draft specifies that individuals who upload videos or produce written content about current affairs, will be deemed ‘digital news broadcasters’. Needless to say, this poses a serious threat to the journalistic and creative autonomy of content-creators.
The draft mandates online content-creators to establish a Content Evaluation Committee (CEC) at their own expense to conduct pre-publication content ‘reviews’. The CEC will be responsible for ‘evaluating’ content and certifying its compliance with a ‘Code of Ethics’. This may open the floodgates of ‘pre-publication censorship’ in the country.
Further, content-creators will be subject to a three-tier regulatory and bureaucratic mechanism. Those who fail to inform the central government of their members’ names, credentials, and other details, will be fined a huge sum of Rs 50 lakh for the first violation, and Rs 2.5 crore for subsequent violations within the next three years.
Indeed, such draconian regulatory requirements could disproportionately affect small content-creators in myriad ways. It is worth recognising that their limited material resources may ultimately result in a shutdown of their endeavours.
The draft provides for stringent conditions for social media organizations. For instance, the failure to provide user-information to the government upon request may result in criminal prosecution.
Likewise, it would have become mandatory for social media users, with a certain number of followers, to report their presence to the Indian government within one month of the bill’s enactment. They will have to comply with a regulatory framework hitherto applicable to streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime.
The enactment of this legislation can potentially lead to a serious outcome, characterized by extensive, cautious self-censorship. If this bill becomes law, numerous content-creators, committed to upholding their ethical principles, who fail to comply with the anti-democratic directives, may experience trepidation about the prospect of officials approaching and hounding them.
This apprehension, indeed, has the potential to cultivate an atmosphere of fear. This could prove to be as bad and nightmarish as ‘official censorship’.
The proposed bill should be considered within the broader legislative landscape characterized by the recent introduction of various laws by the current dispensation in Delhi. These legislative efforts overtly target free speech and media independence. Notable among these are the Data Protection Act, the New Press Act, the Telecom Bill, Information Technology Rules, and others.
Collectively, these laws are likely to adversely impact media professionals and social media users, potentially subjecting them to a formidable array of harsh legal processes and stringent bureaucratic measures. Consequently, media entities and content-creators may face severe hardships when confronted with the combined might of the enforcement of these laws.
The timing of the introduction of the draft bill appears to be intentionally coordinated, as it promptly follows the recent parliamentary results. Thus far, a large section of digital content-creators have played a pivotal role in upholding high journalistic standards by fearlessly posing piercing questions to the government, and reporting the truth in a balanced and objective manner.
Notably, this responsibility has been largely abandoned by the mainstream media, particularly, a large section of television news outlets. Arguably, this bill is a strategic response to undermine the influence of independent, digital media, thereby paving the way to secure favourable conditions for the incumbent government in future elections.
The predominant stance of much of the mainstream media, which, overwhelmingly, aligns with the ruling regime in Delhi, has, predictably, refrained from expressing dissent towards the proposed bill. This apparent reluctance stems from their unwavering support for the current political dispensation. Consequently, they have no fear of encountering repercussions, irrespective of the bill’s enactment.
Naren Singh Rao is a lawyer and academic based in Delhi.
Truthful Razor sharp critique.