I&B Ministry
Government to issue advisory over usage of social media
NEW DELHI: The government is expected to issue an advisory/circular with respect to government usage of social media over the internet.
This was indicated by additional solicitor general Sanjay Jain in the Delhi High Court during the hearing of a public interest litigation by former Bharatiya Janata Party leader K N Govindacharya challenging the use of private American-based sites such as Yahoo and Gmail for sending out government information.
Jain said, “Service categorised as sale of time and space for advertisements over Internet was earlier in negative list but with effect from 1 October 2014, it has been put back on the positive list and is now a taxable service.”
He said that he would on the next date of hearing on 28 November make a categorical statement with respect to taxation issue raised in the petition.
Meanwhile, the Court has asked why the use of private email accounts like Yahoo and Gmail by government officials should not be stopped as it would lead to public/official records being taken outside the country which is a violation of the law.
Justices Badar Durrez Ahmed and Siddharth Mridul said, “Public records are going outside India. Are you (Centre) willing to say there is no difficulty in government documents going to US servers? You should stop usage of non-NIC email accounts by government officers.
“On the one hand we are complaining against National Security Agency (of US) snooping and on the other hand, we are allowing it (public records) to go out.”
The court, however, took on record the submission of additional solicitor general (ASG) Sanjay Jain that “immediate steps will be taken to ensure there is no violation of Public Records Act with a view that all electronic official communication is not taken out of India, insofar as email communication of public records is concerned”.
The ASG also submitted in court that a draft email policy of the government has been finalised for presentation before the Cabinet in two to three weeks, and it only needs approval of the minister concerned.
The submissions were made in response to the query regarding the status of the government’s email policy and what would be the interim measures that would be put in place to prevent official records from going outside India till all the government departments are provided accounts in servers run by National Informatics Centre.
The ASG also said that they have increased capacity of NIC servers to handle one million accounts from the earlier limit of five lakhs and would be further expanding the same.
The Court agreed with contention of advocate Virag Gupta, appearing for Govindacharya that the Public Records Act does apply in the present case. “You cannot have it (public records going outside India), its against the law,” the bench said to the ASG.
Govindacharya in his PIL has sought that the government be directed to use only NIC servers for sending official emails, instead of using the services of foreign sites like Google and Yahoo.
The petition has contended that government departments like Delhi Police and the Indian Railways are not entitled to create accounts on social networking sites.
It has also sought recovery of taxes from the websites on their income from operations in India.
The petition has also alleged that the sites have no mechanism for protection of children from online abuse, claiming that children below 18 years are entering into an agreement with the social networking sites to open accounts, which is against the Indian Majority Act, the Indian Contract Act and also the Information and Technology Act.
Facebook and Google had earlier submitted affidavits in the court detailing the protective measures available on their sites to ensure their product is not misused. They had said their statement of rights and other terms and conditions prohibit children below 13 years of age from registering an account and creating more than one personal account.
They had said they also have strict policies in place to delete any objectionable or misleading content they come across on their sites.
The petition has alleged that due to non-verification of users, more than eight crore of Facebook users across the world were found to be “fake”, which the website admitted before a US authority.
I&B Ministry
India turns up the heat on piracy, orders Telegram to axe 3,142 channels and blocks 800 websites
New legal teeth, nodal officers and notices to intermediaries signal that the government is done playing nice with copyright thieves
NEW DELHI: India’s war on film piracy just got significantly more aggressive. The government has ordered Telegram to remove 3,142 channels distributing pirated content, blocked access to around 800 websites through internet service providers, and put the full weight of freshly sharpened legislation behind the crackdown. The message from New Delhi is unambiguous: the free ride for copyright thieves is over.
Minister of state for information and broadcasting L. Murugan spelled out the legal architecture to the Lok Sabha on Wednesday. The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023, he said, now contains specific provisions designed to make piracy a genuinely painful proposition. Sections 6AA and 6AB prohibit unauthorised recording and transmission of films, with violations attracting a minimum of three months’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 3 lakh. At the upper end, offenders face three years behind bars and fines of up to 5 per cent of a film’s audited gross production cost — a figure that, for a big-budget production, could run into crores.
The legislation also gives the government powers to act against intermediaries hosting infringing content, by notifying them under Section 79(3) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and compelling takedowns and blocking actions. Under Section 79(3)(b), intermediaries are legally required to remove or disable access to unlawful content upon receiving government notice or court orders. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, add a further layer of obligation, requiring platforms to ensure their services are not used to host or distribute content that violates copyright or proprietary rights.
To put enforcement into practice, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has established a dedicated institutional mechanism, complete with nodal officers to receive complaints. Copyright holders, authorised representatives or individuals can report piracy through a prescribed format, after which the government issues notices to intermediaries to disable access to infringing links.
The most headline-grabbing action came on 11 March 2026, when Telegram was formally notified under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and directed to remove and disable 3,142 channels found to be distributing unauthorised content belonging to OTT platforms, content owners and producers. The complaints that triggered the action came from OTT platforms including JioCinema and Amazon Prime Video, which alleged that copyrighted films, web series and other material were being shared on the platform on a massive scale. Telegram’s architecture, with its large file-sharing limits and capacity for user anonymity, has made it a favoured vehicle for exactly this kind of large-scale piracy.
The Telegram action sits within a broader pattern of escalating enforcement. Just days before the Lok Sabha statement, the ministry banned five OTT platforms for streaming obscene content: MoodXVIP, Koyal Playpro, Digi Movieplex, Feel and Jugnu. In July 2025, the Centre ordered the blocking of 25 OTT platforms accused of streaming obscene, vulgar or pornographic material, a list that included ALTT, ULLU, Big Shots App, Desiflix, Boomex, Navarasa Lite, Gulab App, Kangan App, Bull App, Jalva App, ShowHit, Wow Entertainment, Look Entertainment, Hitprime, Feneo, ShowX, Sol Talkies, Adda TV, HotX VIP, Hulchul App, MoodX, NeonX VIP, Fugi, Mojflix and Triflicks.
Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, provides the regulatory hook for those actions, prohibiting platforms from hosting content that is obscene, pornographic, invasive of privacy, gender-harassing, racially or ethnically objectionable, or that promotes hatred and violence.
For an industry that loses billions of rupees annually to piracy, the direction of travel is welcome. The question, as always, is not whether the laws exist, but whether the enforcement machinery can keep pace with the ingenuity of those determined to circumvent it. Three thousand channels down, and the pirates are already busy opening three thousand more.
