I&B Ministry
TV channels urged not to air live coverage of anti-terror ops
NEW DELHI: The Government has advised all television channels in public interest to safeguard innocent lives, to ensure that no operations-linked information reaches the terrorists and their handlers, and in the interest of national security, live coverage of counter-terrorism operation by the security forces should not be telecast.
The advisory was placed on the site of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry.
Earlier this month, Minister of State for I&B Rajyavardhan Rathore had told Parliament that the government was considering a proposal to prohibit live media coverage of counter terrorism operations by security forces and the Home Ministry wanted amendments in the extant laws in this regard.
After the carnage in November 2008, the Ministry on 27 November, 2008, 3 December, 2008 and 20 November, 2009 had issued such advisories in public interest and in the interest of national security not to focus on or report the location, strength, movement, strategy and other related operations being followed by the Security forces engaging with the terrorists so as to avoid any adverse impact on rescue operations.
The advisory was issued as the Ministry said it had come to its notice that some TV channels have covered live the ongoing anti-terrorist operations on 20 March, 2015.
The advisory says that the media coverage may be restricted to periodic briefing by an earmarked official till the operation is concluded.
Attention was drawn to clauses 5.9 and 8.1 of the Uplinking guidelines and Clauses 5.8 and 6.1 of the downlinking Guidelines as well as applicable provisions of the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 and Rules thereunder in this regard.
The issue of coverage by television channels is presently part of the self-regulation guidelines drawn up by the News Broadcasting Standards Authority of the News Broadcasters Association. The Press Council of India had issued similar guidelines with regard to print media.
These guidelines were drawn up after the 26 November, 2008 attacks in Mumbai. Following a controversy that live telecasts of the counter-terrorism operations were in all likelihood been seen by the masterminds in Pakistan who had planned the attacks.
As far as Prasar Bharati is concerned, it is governed by the Programme and Advertising Code, which is also part of the 1995 Act and therefore equally applicable to private television channels. The Inter-Ministerial Committee examines complaints under the Act of 1995 and the Rules drawn up a year earlier in 1994.
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.
