I&B Ministry
Pahlaj Nihalani defends postponement of CBFC meet
NEW DELHI: A meeting of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) slated to take place in Delhi was postponed because the agenda had not yet been decided upon, Board chairman Pahlaj Nihalani said.
Nihalani told Indiantelevision.com that it was erroneous to say that the meeting had been cancelled. He also said that the format of the workshop normally held when new members join had not yet been worked out.
Reacting to media reports, he denied that there was anything ‘crucial’ about the meeting as it was to be a normal meeting, which discussed routine matters and the way forward. “It would be wrong to read meanings into the postponement,” he added.
He also said that it was felt that a workshop worked better in Mumbai as the infrastructure needed for this was available in the CBFC headquarters in the western metropolis.
Earlier, reports said that some members were upset at the sudden manner in which the meeting was put off through what they called a ‘curt notice’ from the chairman.
Members felt that the meeting would have been important as it was slated to be held in Delhi in the presence of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry officials and Minister of State Rajyavardhan Rathore.
Nihalani had informed Board members on 5 June of his decision to postpone the 9 June meeting. However, some members felt that a meeting had to be called soon, regardless of Nihalani’s absence.
Some members had also hoped to draw the attention of the Ministry to what they considered the “authoritarian manner” of the chairman.
Nihalani’s note said, “The 139th Board Meeting-cum-workshop, which was likely to be held on 9 June 2015 at Delhi has been postponed. The new date and time will be intimated to you shortly.”
In a telephonic chat with this correspondent, Nihalani said, “The agenda was not fixed and circulated. Neither was the venue fixed. Under such circumstances, I had to call this off.”
When reminded that the meeting had been fixed three weeks in advance, he said Board members required sufficient time to gather together.
“The new Board members appointed by the BJP government and that includes me, have met once and the Board meets four times a year,” Nihalani added.
As the Board is a statutory body, a Ministry official said the Ministry would not like to interfere in its affairs.
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.
