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

ChrysCapital, Motilal Oswal PE & Sequoia named PE-VC Firms of the Decade

Press Release ChrysCapital, Motilal Oswal Private Equity and Sequoia Capital India have been named the top Private Equity & Venture Capital investors in India during the last decade, as part of Venture Intelligence’s APEX Awards. The Venture Intelligence “Awards for Private Equity Excellence” (APEX) is dedicated to celebrating the best that the Indian Private Equity & Venture Capital industry has to offer.  While ChrysCapital won the “Private Equity Investor of the Decade” award, Motilal Oswal Private Equity was feted as India’s “Growth Capital Investor of the Decade”. The Indian arm of the storied Silicon Valley VC firm, Sequoia Capital, was named the country’s “Venture Capital Investor of the Decade”. The APEX Awardees are selected based on both Self Nomination by the participating PE-VC firms as well as "crowd sourced" nominations and voting from the Limited Partner, PE-VC and advisory communities. (The main criteria were Exit Track Record, New Fund Raises & Fo

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

Ambit Corporate Finance topped the Venture 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 Industries   by Brookfield Asset Management  and the IFC and I Squared Capital-backed   Cube Highways' acquisition of Delhi-Agra Toll Road from Reliance Infrastructu

Jio deals help PE investments climb 12% in H1'20 to $18.8 B

Press Release With Reliance Industries' communications unit Jio Platforms attracting 51% of the investment value, Private Equity-Venture Capital (PE-VC) investments in India rose 12% during the first 6 months of 2020 to $18.8 Billion (across 341 deals), shows data from  Venture Intelligence , a research service focused on private company financials, transactions and their valuations. Investments totaling over $9.5 Billion in Jio by a troop of global private equity firms, following social media giant Facebook's $5.7 Billion mid April investment in the company, helped overall PE-VC investments better the $16.8 Billion (across 503 transactions) invested during the same period in 2019. (Note: These figures include Venture Capital investments, but exclude PE investments in Real Estate).   Jio Platforms' $9.5 Billion Private Equity haul (excluding Facebook’s strategic investment) was led by Middle Eastern and American investors with KKR, Saudi Arabia's Public Invest

Inventus, Sixth Sense, Blume & Norwest win Apex'20 Venture Capital Awards

Inventus Capital Partners, Sixth Sense Ventures, Blume Ventures and Norwest Venture Partners were voted the top Venture Capital investors in India during 2019. The Venture Intelligence “Awards for Private Equity Excellence” (APEX) is dedicated to celebrating the best that the Indian Private Equity & Venture Capital industry has to offer. Other 2019 winners in the VC segment included  Axilor Ventures which was voted   the  Accelerator of the Year for the second year running, 3one4 Capital (VC Fund Raise of the Year) and Innoven Capital (Venture Debt firm of the Year). The APEX Awardees are selected based on both Self Nomination by the participating PE-VC firms as well as "crowd sourced" nominations and voting from the Limited Partner, PE-VC and advisory communities. (The main criteria are Exit Track Record, New Fund Raises & Follow-on Funding Rounds for Portfolio Companies).    " It is an honour to be recognised by entrepreneurs and investors as