OTT Content Regulation: Understanding India’s Parallel Regimes for Films and Streaming Platform

OTT Content Regulation Latest News

• The film Satluj, based on the life of rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, premiered on ZEE5, after being stuck for nearly three years over certification issues. 
• Just two days later, it was taken off the platform in India, though it remains available internationally. Government sources cited “security concerns,” and an Inter-Departmental Committee under the IT Rules, 2021 has been set up to examine the matter. 
• The episode has spotlighted India’s two separate regulatory regimes: the Cinematograph Act for theatres and the IT Rules for streaming platforms.

Background: Why Was Satluj Banned

• The film chronicles the life and death of Jaswant Singh Khalra, an Amritsar-based activist who investigated the alleged illegal cremation of thousands of unidentified bodies by police during Punjab’s militancy years. 
• He was abducted and killed in 1995, a case in which several police officials were convicted.
• Originally titled Ghallughara, the film was renamed Punjab ’95 after CBFC scrutiny, when the board demanded 127 cuts for theatrical release. 
• The makers refused, so the film never reached cinemas. It later arrived on OTT, without cuts, under the new title Satluj. 
• The makers had also challenged the CBFC’s objections in the Bombay High Court in 2023 but later withdrew the petition.

‹ ›

How CBFC Certification Works

• Theatrical releases are governed by the Cinematograph Act, 1952. 
• Under Section 4, anyone wishing to publicly exhibit a film must obtain certification from the CBFC, a statutory body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. 
  • Screening uncertified films in cinemas is a criminal offence.
• The CBFC certifies films as U (unrestricted), UA (unrestricted with parental guidance), A (adults only), and S (restricted to specialised audiences).
• The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023 split the UA category into age-based sub-categories and made certificates perpetually valid, removing the earlier 10-year limit.
• The Act allows the CBFC to refuse certification or demand cuts if a film threatens India’s sovereignty and integrity, state security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court. 
  • These mirror the “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
• Until 2021, filmmakers could appeal CBFC decisions before a dedicated tribunal (FCAT). 
  • Tribunal rationalisation reforms abolished FCAT and shifted its functions to High Courts, making appeals slower and costlier for time-sensitive releases, and removing specialised judicial expertise in cinema matters.

How Streaming Platforms Are Regulated

• OTT platforms historically operated with minimal oversight since the Cinematograph Act covers only public exhibition, not private viewing.
  • In 2019, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a plea to bring OTT content under the Cinematograph Act, distinguishing public exhibition from private streaming.
• OTT content is instead regulated under Part III of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
• These rules prescribe a code of ethics and a three-tier grievance redressal structure: self-regulation by publishers, self-regulatory bodies, and government oversight via the Information & Broadcasting Ministry. 
• This framework is currently under challenge, with the Bombay and Madras High Courts staying the provision.
• The 2023 Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, which sought to classify OTT platforms as broadcasting services, was later withdrawn.
• In Satluj’s case, the government invoked its takedown power under Section 69A of the IT Act.

Understanding Section 69A

• Section 69A empowers the government to block content, exercised through the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
• The government must record reasons for blocking in writing, and a designated Review Committee examines whether such orders comply with Section 69A.
• In this case, the I&B Ministry constituted a high-level Inter-Departmental Committee under Rule 14 of the IT Rules to examine the film’s content.
• The committee can recommend a warning, an apology or disclaimer, reclassification or modification of content, or complete deletion and blocking under Section 69A.

Conclusion

• The Satluj episode reveals a regulatory gap: filmmakers can bypass strict CBFC theatrical scrutiny via OTT, but face parallel, less-defined IT Rules oversight instead. 
• This highlights the need for a coherent, rights-respecting framework governing content across both platforms, balancing free expression with genuine security concerns.

Source: IE | TH