The ministry of information and broadcasting (I&B) on Monday withdrew the draft of the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024, which had attracted a fair degree of criticism for reportedly proposing to bring online content creators under the purview of licensing or registration, if their reach crossed a particular threshold.
The draft Bill was so far not put in public domain seeking public comments, but was shared with stakeholders seeking their comments. The draft was in a watermarked format to prevent any leakage of the copy. Sources said that stakeholders were supposed to send their responses by August 28.
However, now they have been informed to return the draft and not send in their suggestions. Though the draft sought to re-look at the entire broadcasting space afresh, the aspect which was seen as government overreach was the provisions relating to online content creators, influencers, etc on social media like YouTube, Instagram, etc if their viewership crossed a certain threshold. In such case, these creators and influencers would have to pre-certify their content through a content evaluation committee. This was seen as a kind of censorship by analysts and media observers.
According to sources, the I&B ministry is now likely to consult internally and informally with industry over certain clauses and then may come up with a revised version of the Bill. The draft Bill also contained criminal liability provisions for social media companies if they did not provide information pertaining to OTT broadcasters and digital news broadcasters on its platforms for compliance.
The Bill mandated registration for broadcasters and other stakeholders looking to provide broadcasting services. It also made it mandatory for companies to maintain accurate and updated records of subscriber data of their broadcasting services or networks, including the number of subscribers and other such particulars as may be prescribed by the government.
For the first time the government was looking to regulate the content services of over-the-top (OTT) entertainment apps such as Netflix, Disney+ Hotstar, among others. Under it, OTT broadcasting players also needed to intimate the government within a period of one month from the notification of the Act, about their operations and number of subscribers they have, and other requirements as per the Act. The government, however, had also proposed to relax guidelines for OTT players who did not meet the required number of subscribers, for being regulated.
With regard to the penalty structure on failure to comply with the provisions of the Bill, the government had linked the same with the financial capacity of the companies. The maximum penalty which prescribed was up to Rs 50 crore for violation of any terms and conditions of registration, damage to public broadcasting infrastructure, content guidelines, etc. Besides monetary penalties, the Bill also had provisions relating to advisory, warning, and censure. Every broadcaster or broadcasting network operator was required to appoint self-regulatory bodies known as Content Evaluation Committee (CEC) which would include members from social groups, child welfare, etc, for certification of programmes.
The companies would also have to display certificates issued by the CEC as approval for the content and programmes. The government, however, could notify which programmes would not be required to be certified from CEC. Further, the companies would also have to appoint grievance redressal officers for the purpose of receiving and hearing consumer complaints in violation of any Programme Code or Advertisement Code.
A self-regulatory organisation also had the powers to impose penalty upto Rs 5 lakh, up from earlier Rs 1 lakh to the broadcasters covered under the Bill. The government also had the right to constitute a Broadcast Advisory Council to inspect broadcasting networks and services, and prescribe required penalties.
The Bill also allowed for a differentiated approach to Programme and Advertisement Codes across various services and required self-classification by broadcasters and robust access control measures for restricted content. Further, the broadcasters would have to follow comprehensive accessibility guidelines for the needs of persons with disabilities.