I&B Ministry
I&B asks TV channels to show censor certificates before airing movie trailers
NEW DELHI: All television channels need to show the censor certificate before telecasting any film or movie trailer, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry has clarified.
The Ministry has reiterated its advisory sent on 6 January 2011 in this connection.
Any further violation of the programme code may attract strict penal provisions as detailed in Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 and as provided under the Uplinking/ Downlinking Guidelines.
The Ministry said it had come to its notice that a number of TV channels continue to telecast films without displaying Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
The notice said: “It has also been noticed that channels are sometimes showing trailers of new films without showing CBFC. Showing films/film trailers without CBFC is a violation of the cinematograph Act, 1952 as enshrined in Rule 6 [l] (n) of the Cable Television Networks Rules 1994 which also provide that no film or film song or film promos of film trailer or music videos or music albums or their promos, whether produced in India or abroad, shall be carried on cable service unless it has been certified by the CBFC.”
The Ministry therefore has advised all TV channels again to display the CBFC before telecast of any film/film trailer which is clearly visible to the viewers.
They have also been advised to strictly follow Rule 6 (1) (n) while showing any film, song, film promo, music video, music albums or their promos.
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.
