I&B Ministry
Media should reflect on whether airing gang rape film is justified: Jaitley
NEW DELHI: Even as the Delhi High Court is still to decide finally on the ban on India’s Daughter by Leslee Udwin, Information and Broadcasting Minister (I&B) Arun Jaitley said, over the weekend, that the media worldwide should reflect on issues surrounding the film made by BBC and specifically on whether a media organisation should allow its platform to be used by a rapist to justify his innocence.
Asked by reporters in London to give his view on the ban, Jaitley who, is a also lawyer, said the matter was in court.
“The Home Ministry and Parliament had a certain view, which was expressed. Without getting into the issue because it has been challenged in the court and let the court decide this; I will only mention two points to be borne in mind by anyone who wants to produce any film on these causes,” he said.
Jaitley pointed out to a provision under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, which came into force following the Justice Verma Committee report, to prohibit the naming and showing any photograph of the rape victim.
“Secondly, it is a question for the media itself to debate whether during the pendency of the appeal, a media organisation should allow its platform to be used by a rapist to justify why he is not guilty,” he added.
“My understanding of the English law is that on both these counts in a sub-judice matter wit the appeal pending, a media forum may not have been made available to the accused to justify his innocence,” Jaitley said.
He made a direct link with the comments of one of the rapists, Mukesh Singh, who had claimed he was at the wheel and hence “not part of the act.”
“These are the two crucial issues on which I would like the media itself to reflect on,” the Minister said.
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.
