I&B Ministry
Delhi govt slapped with CCRGA notice over political messaging
NEW DELHI: A Supreme Court-mandated committee on content regulation in government advertising (CCRGA) issued a notice to the government in Delhi (AAP) over an advertisement which had appeared last week. The committee had taken sou-moto cognisance of concerns raised on social media that its purpose was only "political messaging." Several questions has been raised on the necessity of issuing the advertisement in Mumbai newspapers.
The one-page advertisement was published by the department of education and directorate of information & publicity, government of NCT of Delhi.
It was heavily criticised on social media with many claiming that it was just political messaging and there was no point in spending huge sums of money to publish the ad in other states.
"Historic! Delhi government schools class 12 results — 98 per cent," said the Delhi government advertisement, which was published in several newspapers on 16 July.
CCRGA demanded a reply to various issues, like cost to the exchequer, within 60 days upon receiving the notice.
"The committee had taken suo-motu cognisance of the points raised in the social media on the Delhi government advertisement — questions had been raised on the necessity of the Delhi government to issue advertisements in Mumbai newspapers and had pointed that the purpose of the ad was only for political messaging," a statement issued by the ministry of information and broadcasting said.
"The one-page advertisement was published by the department of education and directorate of information and publicity, government of NCT of Delhi," the statement said.
The committee is allowed to address complaints from the general public on violation of the supreme court guidelines and make suitable recommendations, the statement said.
The committee can also take suo-motu cognisance of any violation or deviation of the supreme court guidelines and recommend corrective actions, it added.
Presently the CCRGA is chaired by Om Prakash Rawat, former chief election commissioner of India, and its members are Ramesh Narayan of Asian Federation of Advertising Associations and Past President, IAA and Ashok Kumar Tandon, Member, Prasar Bharati board.
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.
