I&B Ministry
Centre asks States to ensure Right of Way to cable ops for implementing DAS
NEW DELHI: In a move that will give a sigh of relief to cable operators all over the country, the Centre has written to state governments to give ‘right of way’ to cable operators who want to lay cables or erect posts to complete the work of digital addressable system (DAS).
In a letter, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry said that Section 48 of the Cable television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 is clear in this regard.
The letter notes that Phase I and II of DAS have been successfully completed and efforts are on to implement the next two phases which have been modified to 31 March 2015 for all other urban areas (Municipal Corporations/Municipalities) and rest of India by 31 December 2015.
Additional secretary Jitendra Shankar Mathur has in his letter asked the chief secretaries in all states to issue instructions to field officers to extend the facility of ‘right of way’ to the cable operators.
He has also suggested that copy of his letter may be appended to the instructions to be sent to field officers, and said he was prepared to answer any queries in this regard.
Sec 48 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Amendment Act 2011 regarding Right of Way (RoW)
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any cable operator entitled for providing cable seNices may from time to time lay and establish cables and erect posts under, over, along, across, in or upon any immovable property vested in or under the control or management of a public authority.
(2) Any public authority under whose control or management any immovable property is vested may, on receipt of a request from a cable operator, permit the cable operator to do all or any of the following acts, namely:-
a) to place and maintain underground cables or posts; and
b) to enter on the property, from time to time, in order to place, examine, repair, after or remove such cables or posts.
(3) The facility of right of way under this section for laying underground cables, and erecting posts, shall be available to all cable operators subject to the obligation of reinstatement or restoration of the property or payment of reinstatement or restoration charges in respect thereof at the option of the public authority.
(4) When the public authority, in public interest considers it necessary and expedient that the underground cable or post placed by any cable operator under the provisions of this section, should be removed or shifted or its position altered, it may require the cable operator to remove it or shift it or alter its position, as the case may be, at its own cost in the time frame indicated by public authority.
(5) The Central Government may lay down appropriate guidelines to enable the State Governments to put in place an appropriate mechanism for speedy clearance of requests from cable operators for laying cables or erecting posts on any property vested in, or under the control or management of, any public authority and for settlement of disputes, including refusal of permission by the public authority.
(6) Any permission granted by a public authority under this section may be given subject to such reasonable conditions as that public authority thinks fit to impose as to the payment of any expenses, or time or mode of execution of any work, or as to any other matter connected with or related to any work undertaken by the cable operator in exercise of those rights.
(7) Nothing in this section shall confer any right upon any cable operator other than that of user for the purpose only of laying underground cable or erecting posts or maintaining them.
I&B Ministry
IT Rules tweaks are clarificatory, not expansion of powers: MeitY
Govt signals flexibility as platforms push for clarity on user content rules
NEW DELHI: The Centre has sought to dial down concerns over its proposed amendments to the IT Rules, with Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology secretary S Krishnan asserting that the changes are intended as clarifications rather than an expansion of regulatory powers.
Pushing back against criticism from platforms and civil society, S Krishnan said the amendments “do not in any way actually give us wider powers” and are meant to remove ambiguity in how existing provisions are applied. He added that the trigger came largely from within the ecosystem, with intermediaries themselves seeking clearer guidance on compliance, takedowns and record preservation.
At the heart of the debate is the growing friction between platforms and policymakers over responsibility for user-generated content. Intermediaries have argued that they should not be treated on par with publishers, particularly when content is created and uploaded by users. Krishnan acknowledged this concern, noting that “a sharper distinction” between user content and publisher content is needed and is currently under examination.
The issue becomes more complex in enforcement scenarios. While registered publishers can be directly asked to modify or remove content, intermediaries often lack control over the original creator. “In such cases, the intermediary cannot direct those changes,” Krishnan explained, underlining the need for procedural nuance.
Another key proposal under discussion is to bring user-generated news and current affairs content within a more unified regulatory ambit, potentially under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The move follows suggestions that a single authority should handle such content, regardless of whether it originates from a publisher or an individual user.
Even as the government frames the amendments as a tidy-up exercise, fault lines remain. Industry players have flagged concerns over compliance burdens, especially for smaller businesses, and questioned whether advisories could effectively become binding without explicit legislative backing. Krishnan said the government is mindful of these risks and is exploring ways to ease obligations, including possible relaxations under certain provisions.
The ministry is also considering consolidating multiple advisories and guidelines into a more structured framework, a step widely seen as addressing long-standing confusion over what platforms are expected to follow.
On takedowns, the government has reiterated that due process will remain unchanged. Krishnan stressed that actions will continue to be governed by established procedures, with reasons recorded and review mechanisms in place. He also pointed to the surge in deepfakes and synthetic media as a factor behind rising content disputes, calling it a “scale challenge” for regulators.
Interestingly, Krishnan also framed social media platforms as commercial entities rather than pure vehicles of free expression, hinting at a broader shift in regulatory thinking as platform economics come into sharper focus.
With stakeholders seeking more time and, in some cases, a rollback of the proposals, the government has kept the consultation process open-ended. Krishnan said further revisions remain on the table, signalling a willingness to adapt the draft based on feedback.
For now, the message from MeitY is clear: the rules may not be tightening in intent, but the effort to define them more clearly is well underway.
