Big government in focus

State plays disproportionate role in the draft broadcast law

The government’s inclination to dominate all spheres of public life finds reflection in the Draft Broadcasting (Services) Regulation Bill, 2023. Though the intent of the law, which has been put up for public comment for 30 days, is sensible, the detailed provisions have raised apprehensions in the broadcasting industry, including over-the-top (OTT) platforms. The Bill seeks to introduce a consolidated legal framework for the broadcasting industry and extend it to OTT content, digital news, and current affairs, replacing the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act of 1995, which currently governs the broadcasting industry. The government has said the Bill would aid its vision of furthering “Ease of Doing Business” and “Ease of Living” in the country.

To be sure, the draft legislation introduces some clarity by definitions for broadcasting and technical terms. But the real worry lies in the move towards government-prescribed programming and advertising codes that appear to shade into censorship. At issue among industry participants and legal experts are two suggested institutional mechanisms for monitoring content. One is the Content Evaluation Committee (CEC) and the other is the Broadcast Advisory Council (BAC). On the face of it, the CEC appears to be an extension of the self-regulatory mechanism under the Digital Media Guidelines of 2021. This is a good thing, making the industry more accountable for, especially, pornographic and other objectionable material. But the concern centres on roles and responsibilities of the CEC. First, the CEC, to be set up under government-prescribed criteria, will be required to self-certify every piece of content. This in itself contradicts the “ease of doing business” ethic. Second, the Bill requires members of the CEC to disclose their personal details to the government and the public. Experts have questioned whether this requirement would contradict the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection legislation. The greater concern, surely, is the security of CEC members. As the recent history of India’s frenzied multicultural democracy has shown, it is possible for someone or some group or the other to be offended by some content at any given time. The risks of CEC members being harassed online or physically for approving content that offends the eye(s) of a random beholder, therefore, are not something a law should enable.

The independence of the CEC is also likely to be dependent on the BAC, which is to oversee content at the third tier of the regulatory structure. This advisory body is expected to have a majority of independent domain experts but the ultimate decision on the breach of the codes will lie with the government. The broadcasting industry rightly fears that the overweening role the government has accorded to itself in determining content codes will stifle creativity, artistic freedom, debate, and discourse, which are the lifeblood of a healthy democracy. The manifest thin-skinned nature of political dispensations at the Centre and the states, jailing under terrorist laws journalists and media proprietors that criticise the state, is unlikely to arouse expectations of a light-touch regulatory environment. In short, the draft Bill urgently needs to return to the drawing board.