Table of Contents
THE CONTEXT: The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s recent closed-door consultations with select industry stakeholders on the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023 have raised concerns about the lack of meaningful public engagement. This approach, which excludes significant portions of the media industry and civil society, undermines the principles of transparency and inclusivity in policymaking.
THE ISSUES:
- Lack of Public Consultation: The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has been criticized for holding closed-door meetings and only sharing the latest drafts of the Bill with select stakeholders under strict confidentiality. This approach contradicts the government’s 2014 Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, emphasizing extensive public outreach before lawmaking. The exclusion of a broader range of stakeholders, including online creators, independent journalists, and civil society, raises concerns about the transparency and inclusivity of the legislative process.
- Potential Chilling Effect on Free Expression: The Bill expands a comprehensive regulatory framework, which has been criticized for chilling free expression. This concern is particularly relevant given the toning down of OTT streaming platforms’ content following the passage of the IT Rules 2021. The new regulations could discourage free expression across various media, including news and entertainment.
- Gatekeeping of Policy Changes: The selective consultation process suggests a deliberate strategy of gatekeeping major policy changes. By deciding who gets a say in the policymaking process, the government may be sidelining the interests of emerging creators, independent commentators, and social media users. This approach could lead to legislation that favors established corporate stakeholders over more diverse voices.
- Regulatory Overreach: The Bill introduces new regulatory requirements for OTT platforms and digital news, including the need for content evaluation committees to pre-screen content. This adds another layer of regulation that could be seen as excessive and potentially stifling innovation and creativity in the digital media space.
- Inconsistent Regulatory Framework: The draft Bill proposes different regulatory frameworks for broadcast and print news, raising questions about the appropriateness of such distinctions. This inconsistency could lead to confusion and potential conflicts in applying the law, especially concerning content critical of the government.
- Risk of Exclusionary Legislation: The lack of meaningful public consultation and the hurried legislative process could result in flawed and exclusionary legislation. Without diverse points of view being considered, the quality and sincerity of the proposal are suspect. This approach risks creating laws that do not adequately address the needs and concerns of all stakeholders, particularly those most affected by media regulation.
THE WAY FORWARD:
- Ensuring Meaningful Public Consultation: The government should adhere to the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy 2014, which mandates extensive public outreach. This includes publishing draft bills on official websites, inviting comments from the public, and holding open forums for discussion. The United Kingdom’s approach to the Online Safety Bill included multiple rounds of public consultation and engagement with various stakeholders, ensuring diverse viewpoints were considered.
- Addressing Potential for Increased Censorship: An independent regulatory body like the UK’s Ofcom should oversee content regulation instead of the central government having direct control. This can help mitigate conflicts of interest and ensure impartiality.
- Clear Guidelines for Content Regulation: The program code should be clearly defined with input from various stakeholders to avoid vague criteria that could lead to arbitrary censorship. The UK’s Communications Act of 2003 provides a good model for clear and specific content standards.
- Quasi-Judicial Appeal Mechanisms: Implement a quasi-judicial appellate mechanism to handle disputes and appeals against content regulation decisions. This approach has been effective in other regulatory contexts, such as the Securities Appellate Tribunal under the SEBI Act, 1992. In Germany, the Interstate Treaty on the Protection of Human Dignity and the Protection of Minors in Broadcasting and Telemedia (JMStV) involves independent bodies handling content regulation, ensuring a balanced approach.
- Unified Regulatory Framework: Develop a unified framework that applies consistent standards across all media types, ensuring fairness and clarity. This approach is seen in the European Union’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), which harmonizes broadcast and online content regulations.
- Proportional Penalties: Ensure penalties are proportionate, primarily monetary or administrative rather than criminal. This aligns with modern regulatory practices that focus on compliance rather than punishment.
THE CONCLUSION:
The government’s method of gatekeeping major policy changes, as seen with the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023, risks creating flawed and exclusionary legislation. The government must adopt a more open and inclusive approach to public consultations to maintain public trust and ensure diverse perspectives are considered.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTIONS:
Q.1 Though 100 percent FDI is already allowed in non-news media, such as trade publications and general entertainment channels, the government has been mulling over the proposal for increased FDI in news media for quite some time. What difference would an increase in FDI make? Critically evaluate the pros and cons. 2014
Q.2 What do you understand by the “freedom of speech and expression” concept? Does it cover hate speech also? Why do films in India stand on a slightly different plane from other forms of expression? Discuss. 2014
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q.1 Discuss the implications of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s approach to the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023, considering transparency and public consultation principles.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word