I&B Ministry
Copyright Board may become part of Intellectual Property Appellate Board
NEW DELHI: The Copyright Board may soon be a part of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).
Though the move was hardly unexpected in view of representations by creative artists, the modus operandi of making this part of the Finance Bill came as a surprise.
Although Intellectual Property was shifted from Human Resource Development Ministry to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) early last year, several stakeholders including writers, software producers and singers and musicians felt that copyright should not be part of one single Ministry or Department.
The Finance Bill 2017 piloted by the finance minister Arun Jaitley and passed in the Lok Sabha earlier this week has proposed this merger
The Bill proposes an amendment to the Copyright Act so as to transfer the functions of the Copyright Board to IPAB which as of now deals only with matters relating to trademarks, patents and geographical indications.
There is also a proposal to amend the rules pertaining to qualifications, appointment and other terms of service of the members of IPAB as provided under the Trade Marks Act. It introduces Section 89A to the Act which leaves these matters to be solely governed by Section 179 of the Finance Act 2017 in respect of members appointed after the commencement of this Act. The Central Government will then make rules in this regard.
Being a money bill, the Finance Bill had to go the Lok Sabha first and then receive assent of the Rajya Sabha, which is only empowered to make suggestions. It will become law after receiving the Presidential assent.
The Finance Bill also proposed merger of seven other tribunals (including the Competition Law Appellate Tribunal and the Cyber Appellate Tribunal) with other existing tribunals.
However, the move of including several non-finance/taxation related amendments in a money bill has not gone unnoticed, and some opposition parties see this as a way of by-passing the Rajya Sabha where the Government would otherwise have difficulty in getting controversial legislation through.
However, Finance Ministry sources said these amendments are related to government expenditure.
Meanwhile, the ministry of information and broadcasting confirmed to indiantelevision.com that on the applications of several film bodies, it was working on an alternative for overseeing implementation of IPR laws for the entertainment industry.
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.
