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.
I&B Ministry
CBFC speeds up film certification; average approval time cut to 22 days
Over 71,900 films cleared in five years as digital system shortens approval timelines
MUMBAI:Â The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has significantly reduced the time taken to certify films, with the average approval timeline now down to 22 working days for feature films and just three days for short films.
Operating under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the statutory body certifies films for public exhibition in line with the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024. The rules prescribe a maximum certification period of 48 working days, though the adoption of the Online Certification System has sharply accelerated the process.
Over the past five years, from 2020-21 to 2024-25, the board certified a total of 71,963 films across formats. Of these, the majority fell under the U category with 41,817 titles, followed by UA with 28,268 films and A with 1,878 films. No films were certified under the S category during the period.
Film approvals have also steadily risen in recent years. The CBFC cleared 8,299 films in 2020-21, a figure that peaked at 18,070 in 2022-23 before settling at 15,444 films in 2024-25. During the same period, 11,064 films were certified with cuts or modifications.
Despite the high volume of certifications, outright refusals remain rare. Only three films were denied certification over the last five years, with one refusal recorded in 2022-23 and two in 2024-25.
The board may recommend cuts or modifications if a film violates statutory parameters relating to the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, defamation, contempt of court or incitement to an offence.
Filmmakers can challenge CBFC decisions in court. Data shows that such disputes remain limited but have seen some fluctuation. Between 2021 and 2025, a total of 21 certification decisions were challenged before High Courts, with the number rising to 10 cases in 2025.
Responding to a question in the Rajya Sabha, minister of state for information and broadcasting L. Murugan shared the data. The question was raised by Mallikarjun Kharge.
With faster timelines and a largely digital workflow, the certification process appears to be moving at a far brisker pace, signalling a shift towards quicker clearances for India’s growing film output.
