I&B Ministry
MIB reminds TV channels, teleport ops about timely online payments
NEW DELHI: In an apparent bid to make broadcasters/TV channels and teleport operators to follow its diktat on online payments for renewals and renewal fees, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) issued two notices recently cautioning stakeholders that any breach could result in adverse consequences.
“Non-payment or delayed payments of prescribed annual permission fee tantamount to violation of uplinking/downlinking guidelines and attract action regarding continuation/revocation of permission under the relevant clauses of uplinking and downlinking guidelines 2011,” one of the MIB notices stated, adding it has been observed that a number of broadcasters and teleport operators had not been paying the requisite permission fee.
Directing broadcasters and teleport operators to deposit outstanding dues within 15 days from the issue of the notice, MIB said, cracking the whip, that any failure to do so will attract action under the existing policy guidelines.
“It must also be ensured that the time schedule for payment of required fee, as prescribed in the uplinking and downlinking guidelines 2011, is strictly adhered to. It may also be ensured before making any request to MIB that there are no outstanding against the channel/teleport operators on the date of application,” the notice said.
In another notice, MIB reminded stakeholders about the submission of online applications for change of name or logo or any other issue, apart from foreign remittance proposals.
“It is reiterated that the instructions given in the notice regarding online submission of applications may be strictly adhered to,” the second notice from the government said.
These notices come close on the heels of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation, the apex industry body for TV channels in India, petitioning the Prime Minister’s Office on the steep hike by MIB in processing fees and other administrative costs.
MIB, in the past, has maintained that the facility of online payments to the government by stakeholders was introduced to reduce paperwork and make life easy for all.
Also Read:
MIB mandates broadcasters to make applications via Broadcast Seva
MIB seeks all new MSO applications online
New portal to help ease of broadcast business
I&B Ministry
India turns up the heat on piracy, orders Telegram to axe 3,142 channels and blocks 800 websites
New legal teeth, nodal officers and notices to intermediaries signal that the government is done playing nice with copyright thieves
NEW DELHI: India’s war on film piracy just got significantly more aggressive. The government has ordered Telegram to remove 3,142 channels distributing pirated content, blocked access to around 800 websites through internet service providers, and put the full weight of freshly sharpened legislation behind the crackdown. The message from New Delhi is unambiguous: the free ride for copyright thieves is over.
Minister of state for information and broadcasting L. Murugan spelled out the legal architecture to the Lok Sabha on Wednesday. The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023, he said, now contains specific provisions designed to make piracy a genuinely painful proposition. Sections 6AA and 6AB prohibit unauthorised recording and transmission of films, with violations attracting a minimum of three months’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 3 lakh. At the upper end, offenders face three years behind bars and fines of up to 5 per cent of a film’s audited gross production cost — a figure that, for a big-budget production, could run into crores.
The legislation also gives the government powers to act against intermediaries hosting infringing content, by notifying them under Section 79(3) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and compelling takedowns and blocking actions. Under Section 79(3)(b), intermediaries are legally required to remove or disable access to unlawful content upon receiving government notice or court orders. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, add a further layer of obligation, requiring platforms to ensure their services are not used to host or distribute content that violates copyright or proprietary rights.
To put enforcement into practice, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has established a dedicated institutional mechanism, complete with nodal officers to receive complaints. Copyright holders, authorised representatives or individuals can report piracy through a prescribed format, after which the government issues notices to intermediaries to disable access to infringing links.
The most headline-grabbing action came on 11 March 2026, when Telegram was formally notified under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and directed to remove and disable 3,142 channels found to be distributing unauthorised content belonging to OTT platforms, content owners and producers. The complaints that triggered the action came from OTT platforms including JioCinema and Amazon Prime Video, which alleged that copyrighted films, web series and other material were being shared on the platform on a massive scale. Telegram’s architecture, with its large file-sharing limits and capacity for user anonymity, has made it a favoured vehicle for exactly this kind of large-scale piracy.
The Telegram action sits within a broader pattern of escalating enforcement. Just days before the Lok Sabha statement, the ministry banned five OTT platforms for streaming obscene content: MoodXVIP, Koyal Playpro, Digi Movieplex, Feel and Jugnu. In July 2025, the Centre ordered the blocking of 25 OTT platforms accused of streaming obscene, vulgar or pornographic material, a list that included ALTT, ULLU, Big Shots App, Desiflix, Boomex, Navarasa Lite, Gulab App, Kangan App, Bull App, Jalva App, ShowHit, Wow Entertainment, Look Entertainment, Hitprime, Feneo, ShowX, Sol Talkies, Adda TV, HotX VIP, Hulchul App, MoodX, NeonX VIP, Fugi, Mojflix and Triflicks.
Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, provides the regulatory hook for those actions, prohibiting platforms from hosting content that is obscene, pornographic, invasive of privacy, gender-harassing, racially or ethnically objectionable, or that promotes hatred and violence.
For an industry that loses billions of rupees annually to piracy, the direction of travel is welcome. The question, as always, is not whether the laws exist, but whether the enforcement machinery can keep pace with the ingenuity of those determined to circumvent it. Three thousand channels down, and the pirates are already busy opening three thousand more.
