Skip to main content

Legal Capsule by LexCounsel


The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (“MIB”) has sought to undertake the ginormous task of regularising and certifying the content available on various entertainment platforms and digital media in general, more particularly referred to as the over the top platforms (“OTT”). The Minister of MIB, Mr. Prakash Javadekar, during a conference with members of the Central Board of Film Certification (“CBFC”) and the Film Industry, on August 31, 2019, stated that the MIB would soon call for talks with the major stakeholders of the prevalent OTTs, including Netflix, Amazon Prime Now, Hotstar etc. as also with members of civil society, technical community, media and legal experts, in order to discuss and formulate a concrete mechanism of certification and regularisation of the content available on such OTTs.

This requirement for the MIB to formulate regulations to certify and regularise the content available on OTTs has stemmed from the displeasure of certain right-wing parties in relation to certain web series (which are currently being streamed on such OTT platforms) as ‘violent’ and ‘vulgar’. The High Court of Karnataka has also suggested to the Central Government to consider setting up a mechanism of certification and regularisation of the online content.

Regulatory Framework:

The certification and censorship of films in India is primarily undertaken by CBFC under the guidelines set out in the Cinematographic Act, 1952 (the "Act") read along with the Cinematographic (Certification) Rules, 1983 and the guidelines issued by the Central Government from time to time. The Act strives to regulate and certify the films based on the content being analysed with the perspective of public order, morality and decency. It is pertinent to note however that this Act does not regulate the content that is available on digital media or electronic platforms. Therefore, CBFC, as of today, does have the right to monitor, certify or regulate any content which is so readily available on the OTTs.

In India, the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) is currently the key regulation that provides for punishment and penalty for publishing and transmission of any sexually explicit data in relation to children, obscene data and other sexually explicit material. The IT Act also empowers the Central Government to block access of public to any objectionable material on the electronic platform. Previously, there were many websites allowing online streaming and downloading of any kind of movies by way of torrents. The Central Government issued directives for blocking such websites as it had no way to regulate the content available for downloading on these websites. Further, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011 provide for guidelines for the intermediaries to regulate the content available on such intermediaries which include electronic platforms and digital media.

The power of censorship of CBFC has been contested many times on the pretext that such discretionary power of the CBFC is violative of the artist’s freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court1 has delved with this issue in detail and has held that the general public interest supersedes the requirement to protect the individuality and expression of any artists. The Supreme Court has however recognised that a specific standard of censorship is required to be formulated in this regard to not curb the growth of an artist’s individuality and freedom of expression. Several committees formed by the MIB have suggested that the CBFC should only be empowered to certify the films and not to censor the content of the films. The Individual should have the right to assess the content he wishes to watch.
Considering the fact that OTTs like Netlix and Hotstar cater to crowds of various cultures, tastes and ethnicities, such OTTs have taken it upon themselves to regulate the content available on such platforms and have voluntarily adopted a self-regulatory Code of Best Practices under the Internet and Mobile Association of India. The guiding principle for these OTTs is to cater to the masses and to provide content conducive to the viewers in any specific jurisdiction.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court has already issued a notice in a petition seeking formulation of guidelines to regulate content on online streaming OTTs, on a petition filed by NGO Justice for Rights. The petitioner has argued that OTT platforms are not only displaying unlicensed, unregulated and uncertified content, but are also operating without being governed by any guidelines.


Internet is a vast and ever-changing landscape. Given the dynamic nature of the platform, innovators and experts find ways and means to get around regulatory frameworks if viewing of certain websites and certain content on any platform is blocked. For instance, when torrents were blocked on certain host websites, a proxy mechanism was developed as if such a website was being accessed from somewhere outside India, where such websites were not blocked, and this aided users to continue downloading content through torrents on these websites. Similarly, if certain content is not available or a censored version is available in India but uncensored versions of such content is available elsewhere, there are various aggregator applications which facilitate the viewing of such uncensored content in India.

Further, it is pertinent to note that currently there is no concrete regulatory framework under the Act, to censor the content available on OTT platforms or in relation to digital content. The IT Act only prohibits the publishing and transmission of sexually explicit or obscene material. The digital content available on the internet is immense and creating a regulatory mechanism to certify and monitor such content seems to be a herculean task considering the implementation and enforcement issues.

In light of the above, it would be interesting to assess the guidelines proposed to be prepared by MIB in relation to the digital content. What maybe particularly challenging for MIB while drafting such guidelines or regulations would be the provisions in relation to enforcement. The creation of a regulation encompassing all present and future digital content and the platforms on which such content is available and attempting to monitor and enforce such regulations could be a huge challenge for any regulatory authority. Further, adherence to such regulations by OTTs could also be problematic as filtering such data for compliance and monitoring leakages could be tricky.

If you have questions or would like additional information on the material covered herein, please contact:

Ms. Seema Jhingan, Partner

Ms. Swasti Ray, Senior Associate

LexCounsel, Law Offices C-10, 
Gulmohar Park New Delhi 110 049,
INDIA. Tel.:+91.11.4166.2861 


[1] KA Abbas v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 481

Popular posts from this blog

VC Interview: Shailendra Singh of Sequoia Capital India

In a recent interview to Venture Intelligence, Shailendra Singh discussed some of the firm’s newer investments in the early stage segment including in the online payments space, the progress at a few existing portfolio companies and the active role the firm is playing in helping its portfolio companies scale and succeed in India and globally. Prior to joining the firm in 2006, Singh was a strategy consultant at Bain & Company in New York and before that, an entrepreneur in the digital media industry.

Venture Intelligence: How does Sequoia go about identifying potential early stage investments in India? Is there anything different you are doing today than, say, a couple of years back?

Shailendra Singh: There is a lot more focus on technology investing and early stage investing. In general, as you might remember a few years ago, we were doing primarily growth investing but in the past 18-odd months, we have had a very strong focus on early stage and that’s continuing. In terms of how…

PE Investments down by 36% in Q1'20

Press Release
Private Equity-Venture Capital (PE-VC) firms invested $5.9 Billion (across 164 deals) during the quarter ended March 2020 - 36% lower than the $9.2 Billion (across 249 transactions) during the same period last year, according to data from Venture Intelligence, a research service focused on private company financials, transactions and their valuations. The Q1'20 investments were also 37% lower compared to the immediate previous quarter (which had witnessed $9.4 Billion being invested across 227 transactions). (Note: These figures include Venture Capital investments, but exclude PE investments in Real Estate).
The latest quarter witnessed 14 PE-VC investments worth $100 million or more, down from the 20 such transactions in the same period last year. The largest PE-VC investment announced during Q1’20 was the $567 million takeover of power generation company RattanIndia Power by Goldman Sachs and Varde Partners. The second largest investment was SoftBank Vision Fund…

Ambit tops League Table for Transaction Advisors to Private Equity deals in 2019

Ambit Corporate Finance topped theVenture Intelligence League Table for Transaction Advisor to Private Equity Transactions for the year 2019. Ambit advised PE deals worth $2.4 Billion (across 4 qualifying transactions) during the period. Citi ($1.1 Billion across 2 deals) and Avendus ($969 million across 12 deals) took the second and third spot. Edelweiss Financial Services ($758 million across 9 deals) and PwC ($708 million across 15 deals) completed the top five in 2019. 

The Venture Intelligence League Tables, the first such initiative exclusively tracking transactions involving India-based companies, are based on value of PE and M&A transactions advised by Financial and Legal Advisory firms.
Ambit Corporate Finance advised the $1.9 Billion buyout of Pipeline Infrastructure from Reliance Industriesby Brookfield Asset Management and the IFC and I Squared Capital-backedCube Highways' acquisition of Delhi-Agra Toll Road from Reliance Infrastructure (Reliance ADAG). Citi advise…

PE investments in 2018 crosses $33-B to set new all-time high

Big Ticket investments in consumer apps Swiggy & Byju’s dominates year-end activity, even as investments in Core Sectors slow down
Private Equity (PE) investments in India rose to their highest ever figure of $33.1 billion in 2018 (across 720 transactions), according to data from Venture Intelligence (, a research service focused on private company financials, transactions and their valuations. While PE investments have already surpassed the previous high - $24.3 Billion across 734 deals in 2017 - in the first nine months of 2018, the mega investments in Consumer Internet & Mobile startups such as Swiggy and Byjus towards the year-end, helped the 2018 total vault by 36% year-on-year. (Note: These figures include Venture Capital investments, but exclude PE investments in Real Estate.) The year witnessed 81 PE investments worth $100 million or more (accounting for 77% of the total investment value during the period), compared to 47 such transac…

"Leveraged stock purchase led Arvind Rao to go astray": Forbes India

Forbes India has an article on the series of events leading to the recent controversial exit of Arvind Rao, Co-founder & CEO of listed Mobile VAS firm OnMobile.

On November 23, 2010, Arvind Rao, the 53-year-old co-founder and CEO of OnMobile, bought approximately 6 lakh shares of his company from the open market, representing a little over 1 percent of the company’s total shares....At Rs 277 a share, he had to pony up nearly Rs 16.5 crore to acquire them....So he went ahead and borrowed money to buy the shares, thinking nothing of the interest it entailed or the fact that he’d need to put up nearly half his existing shareholding as collateral...OnMobile’s shares continued to fall from those levels, while Rao’s interest payments ballooned.

...Motivated by OnMobile’s growth all these years, he had never paid much attention to his salary, most of which went towards the monthly rental on his sea-facing apartment in Mumbai and his BMW 7-Series, both paid directly by the company. He reque…