I&B Ministry
I&B ministry stops broadcast and distribution of Mangalam and Whistle TV
Mumbai: The ministry of information and broadcasting vide its order dated 26 October whereby the broadcast of the channels Mangalam and Whistle TV permitted M/s. G.N. Infomedia is prohibited for a period of 30 days w.e.f under the extant policy guidelines for downlinking of private satellite TV channels in India, 2011.
According to Rule 6(6) of the Cable Television Network Rules 1994, no cable operator shall carry or include in his cable service any television broadcast or channel that has not been registered by the central government for viewing within the territory of India.
In a letter dated, 27 October 2010, MIB granted permission to M/S. GN Infomedia to uplink and downlink a news & current affairs TV channel, namely ‘Mangalam’ and a non-news and current affairs TV channel, namely ‘Whistle TV’ for a period of 10 years. The permission granted to G. N. Infomedia has already expired on 26 October 2020.
“In light of the foregoing, all MSOs/LCOs are directed not to carry the above-mentioned channel on their network during its prohibition period,” MIB stated. “Failure to do so will result in appropriate/suitable action being initiated against the defaulter(s) in accordance with the relevant clause(s) of the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 and rules framed thereunder.”
The company, in response to the SCN’s vide letter dated 19 January 2022 sought an extension of time.
Accordingly, the company was informed to apply for a 10-year renewal by 28 February 2022. However, the company did not apply within the prescribed time frame. Therefore, another SCN dated 14 March 2022 was issued to the company.
The company, in response to the letter dated 28 March 2022 again sought an extension of time. Accordingly, the company was informed to apply for a 10-year renewal by 31 July 2022 but the company, in response to SCN, has again sought an extension of time.
The company that got the permission renewed was required to apply for the same six months prior to the date of expiry of the permission period. However, the company has still not applied for a 10-year renewal for its two channels despite a considerable lapse of time.
The company has therefore violated clauses 5.4 & 5.8 of the uplinking guidelines, 2011.
Clause 5.4 of uplinking guidelines 2011, provides that “The Company shall furnish such information as may be required by the ministry of information & broadcasting, from time to time.”
“The company shall ensure its continued eligibility as applicable throughout the period of permission and adhere to all the terms and conditions of the permission, failing which the company will be liable for a penalty as specified,” according to clause 5.8 of uplinking guidelines 2011.
The TV channel Whistle TV is non-operational. Therefore, there is no provision in the uplinking guidelines that permits the channel to remain non-operational. Therefore, the company has violated clause 5.8 of the uplinking guidelines, 2011.
Further action will be taken for a period of 30 days with the direction to the company to pay outstanding dues and fulfil regulatory compliance, failing which further action will be taken.
However, if the company applies for a 10-year renewal for the two channels and takes necessary steps to remove the other violations of the policy guidelines for uplinking of TV channels in 2011, during the period of prohibition, the permission to the channel may be considered for restoration.
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.
