Although the Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, 2023, was withdrawn following widespread criticism from stakeholders, its regulatory approach appears to persist. Reports indicate that a similar framework may now be considered through proposed amendments to the Press Council Act, 1978. These amendments aim to expand the mandate of the Press Council of India beyond print media to include digital news publishers, prominent content creators, and social media influencers.
The Press Council of India, established in 1978, was designed to oversee newspapers within a print-era framework characterized by defined editorial chains and institutional structures. In contrast, the digital ecosystem operates across multiple platforms where creators directly publish content for audiences. Influencers engage in formats ranging from satire to commentary and cultural expression. Extending a print-era oversight model to such a diverse and decentralized environment requires careful calibration to avoid unintended consequences.
Simultaneously, the central government is reportedly preparing draft rules under the proposed Information Technology Digital Code Rules, 2026, aimed at comprehensively regulating obscene and harmful digital content. These discussions include expanding age-based classification, introducing stronger content descriptors, and applying broader standards governing obscene content, reportedly derived in part from the Programme Code under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994.
While each regulatory proposal may appear reasonable in isolation, collectively they raise concerns about potential overreach and regulatory uncertainty. Such developments could impact investment, innovation, and consumer choice within India’s rapidly growing digital economy.
Traditional print and broadcast media operate through centralized, editorially controlled, one-to-many communication systems. In contrast, digital platforms are interactive, personalized, and user-driven, with audiences actively selecting and engaging with content on demand. Applying a uniform and stringent regulatory regime to digital platforms risks overlooking these structural differences, potentially narrowing the space for lawful expression and altering how citizens interact with digital content.
Digital platforms, including online curated content publishers and digital news entities, are already governed by the Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules, 2021, framed under the Information Technology Act, 2000. These rules mandate a Code of Ethics, grievance redressal mechanisms, self-classification, and age-rating requirements. Expanding the Press Council Act to cover the same entities could create regulatory overlap, duplicative compliance obligations, jurisdictional ambiguity, and increased costs, particularly for smaller platforms and independent creators.
India’s digital economy has emerged as a significant driver of employment, entrepreneurship, and global cultural outreach. Regulatory clarity and predictability remain essential to sustaining this momentum. Much will depend on how key terms such as influencers and fake news are defined. Broad definitions could encompass a wide range of actors, from established news organizations to individual creators, raising concerns about overbreadth, vagueness, and disproportionate restrictions on free speech.
Closely linked to definitional ambiguity is the risk of a chilling effect on speech. When regulatory standards are unclear, overly broad, or inconsistently applied, individuals may refrain from exercising their right to free expression despite the legality of their content. Over time, such self-censorship could narrow the diversity of voices and viewpoints available online, undermining the vibrancy of public discourse.
The proposed Information Technology Digital Code Rules, 2026, introduce additional concerns regarding the definition of obscene content. Under the proposed framework, any digital content may qualify as obscene if it is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, or tends to deprave and corrupt individuals. However, this definition appears to exclude contextual, artistic, or narrative considerations, elements consistently recognized in legal jurisprudence. This raises the possibility that content not deemed obscene under established legal standards could still be treated as unlawful, thereby restricting legitimate creative expression.
While protecting minors and addressing unlawful content are legitimate regulatory objectives, online curated content publishers are already complying with age-rating systems, content advisories, and access-control measures under existing rules, often exceeding statutory requirements. Introducing mandatory verification and additional compliance obligations for each piece of content could create significant technological and operational challenges, especially for smaller and emerging platforms.
Furthermore, mandating identity-based access to creative content raises broader concerns about user privacy, data minimization, and the risk of exclusion or misuse. Such measures could conflict with the digital ecosystem’s reliance on low-friction access, lawful anonymity, and seamless user participation. At a broader level, layering these obligations risks blurring the line between regulation and censorship, raising questions about proportionality and the protection of constitutional free speech guarantees.
As India’s media landscape continues to evolve, efforts to establish a unified regulatory framework reflect a legitimate objective of enhancing accountability. However, applying uniform regulation across structurally distinct media formats presents significant legal, constitutional, and practical challenges. Without careful calibration, a single framework may result in overlapping regulations, disproportionate compliance burdens, and unintended constraints on protected speech, shaping the future trajectory of India’s digital public sphere.
About The Author
Comment List