News Broadcasting
Draft Broadcast Bill: Big brother wants to do more than just watch
The draft broadcast regulations that the government is trying to put in place has its merits and demerits, but what is shocking is the way the lawmakers are going about the whole thing, most of which is shrouded in secrecy.
That the draft Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill 2006, doing the rounds of ministries for feedback, is restrictive — to put it mildly — and draconian in parts is a story itself. But what is a bigger story is an attempt by the Congress-led coalition government to steamroll legislation through without taking industry stakeholders and others into confidence, thus making a mockery of democratic norms.
|
It is a calculated effort to muzzle the media in general and incapacitate the electronic medium, which has its own powers because of the impact of visuals, in particular.  |
The attempt of the information and broadcasting ministry to quietly draft regulations for the Cabinet’s consideration, while denying at the same time that anything of that sort even exists, amplifies that the blustering of I&B minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi is not all gas. It is a calculated effort to muzzle the media in general and incapacitate the electronic medium, which has its own powers because of the impact of visuals, in particular.
Cross media restrictions, powers bestowed on authorities to take action against the media and TV channels on the flimsiest of grounds, content censorship (which is being drafted separately, but could be made part of this Bill or legislation at a later stage) are all aimed at strangling the media.
What make things scary is that the proposed autonomous Broadcast Regulatory Authority of India (Brai) has been given powers that permit it to run amok if interpreted incorrectly by it. Especially when Brai’s chief executive would be a serving government official of additional secretary’s rank, drawing a salary from the government and, naturally, having allegiance to the government.
The flip side is that not all the clauses in the draft Broadcast Bill 2006 are new. Some of them do exist in some form or other in the Cable TV Network (Regulation) Act and other pieces of media legislation. References to cross media restrictions were made in the Broadcast Bill of 1997 too. And remember that never got past a joint parliamentary committee set up to examine it after being tabled in Parliament.
The 1997 Bill stated that a person or a company will be allowed to hold licences in only one of the following category of services: Terrestrial Radio Broadcasting, Terrestrial Television Broadcasting, Satellite Television or Radio Broadcasting, DTH Broadcasting, Local Delivery Services and any other category of services, which may be notified by the Central government.
In 1997, restriction of monopolies was more targeted towards newspaper houses. The Bill then had said that no proprietor of a newspaper will either be a participant with “more than 20 per cent interest in or control a body corporate, which is the holder of a licence to provide a licensed service under this Act.”
|
Without criticizing a government’s right to make a law, what needs to be seen in a broader context is the way that right is used in a democratic setup. |
This time round, the government has allowed interest in various segments of the media business, but capped them so low that effective concentration of power is totally neutralised to the extent of threatening to destroy various business models.
Without criticizing a government’s right to make a law, what needs to be seen in a broader context is the way that right is used in a democratic setup.
If we examine the draft of the content regulation, prepared by a sub-panel of a 30-member committee overseen by I&B secretary SK Arora, it hints at stringent content regulation, particularly for news channels. If okayed by lawmakers in its present state, it could well be the end of sting operations and coverage of issues where high profile politicians and personalities are involved.
Sample this part: “TV channels must not use material relating to a person’s personal or private affairs or which invades an individual’s privacy unless there is an identifiable public interest reason for the material to be broadcast.”
Who decides what constitutes an individual’s privacy? The government or the regulator? What this means of course is that it’s all up for interpretation.
It is this scope for interpretation that is the most fearful aspect of this bill. More so since the onus of proving identifiable public interest lies with the TV channel and not the other way round.
Additionally, the flat-footedness of the media industry and lack of consensus on important issues amongst the various stakeholders is incomprehensible, to say the least. The surprise that the draft Broadcast Bill 2006 — even if it’s an early draft for argument’s sake — has sprung on the TV industry, shows that people have been caught napping. Or, the industry thought the government was just talking gas.
Either way, Delhi seems to be having the last laugh. Hang on, maybe not yet. There may still be some time left for saner voices in the government to stand up.
But for that to happen, the media industry needs to project a united stand. Something like what was demonstrated when the Rajiv Gandhi government in 1988 had attempted to bring in a piece of legislation to muzzle the media. It took weeks of concerted opposition from Indian journalists to scupper an initiative to revise the law on defamation. It may be recalled that the government had rushed the Defamation Bill through the lower house of Parliament in August of that year.
When we last commented on the ramifications of the Broadcast Bill, we expressed the view that there is a feeling of déj? vu that it may be another exercise in futility.
It could well be in the industry’s collective interest to ensure that the draconian aspects of the Broadcast Bill suffer the same fate as the Defamation Bill of 1988.
There are several ways of voicing their grievances and making sure that the industry voice reaches the powers-that-be. Indiantelevision.com believes it can function as a forum for debate, and would love to have comments from various constituents of the industry on the Broadcast Bill 2006.
Send in your mails to editor@indiantelevision.com. And let’s work towards building a more robust television sector – keeping in mind the government, the industry and foremost of all, the consumer.
News Broadcasting
WITT Summit 2026 concludes in New Delhi
Babar Azam’s comical diving attempt goes viral as league introduces anti-dew measures.
MUMBAI: The WITT Summit just wrapped up with enough big ideas to fill a policy playbook because when India’s leaders, thinkers and icons gather under one roof, even the conversations hit sixes. The eighth edition of TV9 Network’s flagship What India Thinks Today (WITT) Summit 2026 concluded on Saturday after two days of dynamic discussions at its New Delhi venue. India’s largest multi-domain public policy and culture summit brought together political leaders, policymakers, sports icons, artists and technology innovators to examine the forces shaping contemporary India and its global standing.
Prime minister Narendra Modi delivered the keynote address on the theme “India and the World” for the third consecutive year. In a wide-ranging speech, he addressed the ongoing conflict in West Asia, calling for restraint and compassion while highlighting India’s continued development trajectory despite global turmoil.
The summit featured candid conversations with state leaders. Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy articulated a people-first governance model and contrasted it with other development approaches. Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Mohan Yadav declared that Left-wing extremism had been effectively eliminated in his state and highlighted preparations for the upcoming Kumbh Mela. Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann defended his government’s record, citing the closure of 19 toll plazas and creation of the Sadak Suraksha Force. Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar expressed confidence in Congress prospects in Assam and addressed recent allegations against him.
On geopolitics and national security, Union Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia outlined India’s ambition to become a builder of trusted digital infrastructure for the world, citing the rapid 5G rollout and village-level 4G connectivity.
Cricket received significant attention. Former India captain Sourav Ganguly praised player freedom and trust as hallmarks of great leadership and named MS Dhoni as the greatest captain due to his World Cup successes. India women’s team bowling coach Aavishkar Salvi credited the BCCI and Women’s Premier League for building a pipeline of world-class talent behind the team’s recent ODI World Cup triumph.
The summit also hosted the inaugural AI² Awards 2026, celebrating the convergence of human creativity and machine intelligence in storytelling and content creation. Poet and kathavachak Kumar Vishwas delivered a nuanced take on India’s concept of Dharma and criticised the recent arrest of an 80-year-old Shankaracharya. Veteran lyricist Sameer Anjaan and storyteller Neelesh Misra reflected on changing music trends and artistic responsibility in the wake of a recent controversy involving Nora Fatehi.
In a country where conversations often run as deep as the Ganges, the WITT Summit proved once again that when leaders, thinkers and storytellers come together, the real winner is public discourse lively, layered and refreshingly unafraid to tackle the big questions shaping India’s tomorrow.
