Stay informed with free updates
Simply sign up to the Technology myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.
The writer is policy and campaigns officer at Index on Censorship
Policymakers’ favourite metaphor for online spaces is the “wild west”, a description that presents online behaviour as the activities of lawless gunslingers and themselves as the grizzled sheriff sent in to re-establish order.
In this limited view, online speech regulation is shorn of all nuance or complexity. Instead, it is pitched as a battle between harmony and lawlessness, good and bad. Nowhere is this more apparent than India.
Last week, the Indian government withdrew the broadcasting services (regulation) bill 2024 following heavy criticism. But withdrawal does not mark the end of the government’s ambition to control online speech.
The broadcasting bill proposed giving the government expansive powers and included vaguely defined provisions that left individual content creators, alongside platforms, at the mercy of an untested regulatory framework.
While previous versions of the bill were limited to “citizens of India”, the 2024 version removed this limit, suggesting global applicability. It also expanded the definition of broadcasting to include text, as well as “audio, visual or audio-visual” programmes, meaning that it would cover every type of online content.
Prior to the broadcasting bill, the Indian government’s most prominent attempt to wrest control of the internet came with the 2021 IT Rules. This was updated with plans for a digital India bill (DIB), which sought to expand on the IT Act, all under the guise of limiting the influence of US tech giants. It did little to acknowledge the fact that making platforms liable for the content they host would increase private censorship.
To escape liability, platforms would have had to be more proactive in removing content and accounts.
While the DIB was never published, the broadcasting bill has reignited this debate. Its attempt to establish a regulatory regime for all broadcasters or network operators, including individual YouTubers, social media users and online media outlets, represented an exercise in state control. While a previous draft published in 2023 was open to public consultation, the latest version was only shared with a select few. Each version was given a specific marker: if it was leaked, the authorities would have the fingerprint of the leaker.
Even with such control, information got out; opposition leaders, civil society and content creators were quick to condemn it. Congress party spokesperson Pawan Khera called the bill a “direct threat to our freedom of speech and independent media”.
As magazine editor Anant Nath pointed out during a press conference organised by the non-profit DIGIPUB News India Foundation, the broadcasting bill was only one part of a larger project. “This broadcast bill is one more step in creating a multi-layered legal system to regulate, control, monitor and censor content in the country, which started from the IT Rules 2021,” he said.
The government’s plans to control online speech are still up in the air. While the 2021 IT Rules are being challenged in court, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has confirmed stakeholders can submit feedback on the broadcasting bill by October 15 but has not confirmed the version being used and has not opened it up to consultation by the public.
However, the future of these bills matters less than the intent that underpins them. While the mobilisation of civil society, content creators, advocates, campaigners and broadcasters was vital in highlighting the flaws in the broadcasting bill, the signal to be vigilant remains lit.
The government’s urge to create new regulation has not been quelled. All that has been signalled is that these particular bills were imperfect vehicles for the government’s plan to censor and control online speech.
