The Indian Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (“MIB”) has issued a recent advisory to Over-the-Top Platforms (“OTT platforms”) and their self-regulatory bodies, as a reminder towards their duty to comply with current legislation and ethical standards under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“IT Rules 2021”). The advisory, published on 19 February 2025, is creating an increasing concern regarding allegedly obscene, pornographic, and immoral material on OTT platforms, precipitating new content regulation and regulation of free speech.
Grey Zone: Streaming Without Borders
The advisory also points towards the fact that the Code of Ethics, as part of the IT Rules, 2021, obliges OTT platforms to desist from telecasting content legally restricted. Such regulations involve age grading, access control practices on ‘A’ rated content, and general carefulness while broadcasting content. The self-regulatory framework of OTT platforms also must ensure compliance and take proactive action against the offense.
Though the advisory does not mention new requirements of the law, it strengthens provisions under existing legislation like the Indecent Representation of Women Act, 1986, Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. However, this move while ensuring compliance with law also means increased content surveillance, which brings up the question: is freedom of speech and creative freedom being silenced?
Is Free Speech Streamed or Silenced?
The advisory also stokes the debate about whether OTT regulations unnecessarily restrict free speech. In contrast to the past tradition of television and cinema, OTT platforms have now primarily functioned with little pre-censorship. Nevertheless, increasing government control—largely spurred by political and social concerns—has seen apprehension regarding the dilution of creative freedom through self-censorship.
The advisory regime puts OTT content into regulatory limbo by relying increasingly on state guidance and self-regulatory institutions. The uncertainty over how enforcement mechanisms operate and what would constitute “obscene” or “vulgar” content leaves plenty of scope for interpretative flexibility that can lead to arbitrary pulling down or over-moderation by websites in fear of government retaliation.
Regulation of Indian online material has been an issue of dispute for decades. The sudden evolution of digital media shattered conventional censorship, and the government had to introduce new legislation. IT Rules 2021 was a step of giant dimensions towards official regulation of digital content. Whereas some argue that such legislation is necessary to end the spread of revolting content, others believe it can crush dissent and freedom of art.
The IT Rules anticipated a three-tier grievance redressal mechanism, asking OTT platforms to have in-house regulatory mechanisms and be regulated by an industry association-led self-regulatory code. The government preserved its intervention powers at a higher level if content protests were raised. Although the model strikes the right balance of state intervention and industry self-regulation, the model is bothersome on issues of government overreach.
Paatal Lok in 2020 invoked controversy by presenting social and political issues. Although critics reviewed the show well, reports were filed about defamation and religious sensitivity, reflecting the fine line between storytelling and regulatory censorship.
The Censorship-Piracy Link: A Growing Risk
Strict censorship of international content has fuelled piracy issues. When shows, films, or documentaries are heavily edited or banned, audiences often use pirated sources. For instance, Game of Thrones episodes were leaked online due to censorship-related delays, while banned films like The Last Temptation of Christ circulated widely through piracy. Similarly, when Netflix’s The Hunt faced censorship threats, many used pirated copies instead of using official platforms.
This trend harms the OTT industry, reducing revenue for rightful creators. To combat piracy, regulatory systems should prioritize content classification over outright bans. Providing clear disclaimers and content warnings allows viewers to make informed choices, balancing creative freedom with audience sensitivity. By avoiding unnecessary restrictions, platforms can preserve free expression while protecting industry earnings.
Self-Regulation: A Shield For Freedom Or A Tool For Censorship?
One of the most essential questions the advisory raises is: does self-regulation work? While the government has referred to the part played by industry bodies in imposing compliance, their autonomy and ability to resist political pressure is questionable. Whether or not self-regulation works depends on platforms’ commitment to applying rules of content consistently and transparently.
There have been instances where self-regulatory policies were deemed too hard or too gentle. There have been instances where some OTT platforms voluntarily pulled out content under the threat of public outrage or the looming threat of government pressure, raising accusations of self-censorship. The platforms have also been attacked for not acting adequately against content that breaks ethical and legal rules.
The Tandav debacle on Prime Video highlighted the dilemmas of self-regulation in OTT platforms, criticized for scenes allegedly offending religious sentiments; the platform extended an apology and omitted the controversial content. This event stirred discussions on self-censorship, with some arguing that platforms were bowing down to external pressures, while others proposed that content creators should be more sensitive toward sentiments.
The court has been influential in determining the regulation of digital content in India. Judicial petitions challenging the IT Rules have been filed because they unreasonably limit freedom of speech. The court has partially adopted a balanced perspective, weighing the necessity for regulation against liberty.
There have been instances where Courts have struck down overly broad content regulation provisions, resorting to proportionality and due process. In the Shreya Singhal case, India’s Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which made it a crime to post online messages that were “offensive” or “menacing.” This ruling confirmed that constant and arbitrary controls on online content are against constitutional rights. Yet judicial intervention has not always curbed overregulation. It has at times, upheld censorship to maintain public order and decency. This highlights the significance of clear laws that balance the protection of free expression and regulatory objectives.
Conclusion
The MIB’s move on regulation of OTT content reflects the age-old content moderation vs. free speech debate. Despite the government’s justification that such measures are unavoidable to maintain public morality and protect the user, they remain underscored by concern over their intrusion into artistic freedom and democratic discourse.
The challenge is balancing freedom and regulation. Over-regulation can smother innovation and withhold a variety of voices, while under-regulation can invite the proliferation of dangerous and damaging content. The answer lies in a thin policy that ensures compliance with law and morality without sacrificing the right of freedom of speech. As debates regarding regulating online content continue to simmer, interests must unite and find a way forward that keeps regulatory interests intact and hopes open for free expression.
With the development of OTT platforms, the regulatory framework is bound to develop with it. The government advisory attempts to pull the leash tighter, but how much of this is implemented remains to be seen. There is growing pressure for greater transparency and consultative oversight of web content. Policymakers must interact with industry actors and civil society to formulate guidelines that protect users but safeguard creative freedom. Any policy framework must be drawn up carefully to avoid abuse and ensure that content limits are based on objective and explicit specifications.
Authors: Mahin Chichkar