The Union government has proposed guidelines defining “obscenity” and other disallowed content online in the Information Technology Rules, 2021, which govern social media companies and OTT streaming platforms, in a note for filing in the Supreme Court seen by The Hindu.
The proposal includes language that applies to all digital content — social media platforms, OTT streaming services, and digital news platforms — with broad restrictions incorporated from the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.
The note was served this week to litigants in an ongoing case by an advocate for the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, after the Supreme Court urged the government earlier this year to frame guidelines on online content.
The IT Rules already contain language requiring social media platforms to disallow content that “is obscene, pornographic, paedophilic, invasive of another’s privacy including bodily privacy, insulting or harassing on the basis of gender, racially or ethnically objectionable, relating or encouraging money laundering or gambling.”
Now, the amendment proposed by the Union government — if the Supreme Court approves it — would explicitly define “obscene digital content”, and add language to the rules’ Code of Ethics that are based on Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000, the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and its rules, and the Indian Penal Code, the precursor to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Section 67 of the IT Act would also be the “legal basis” for this amendment, the Ministry said.
“This is exactly the Cable TV Programme Code, copied to the digital medium,” Mishi Choudhary, founder of the digital rights advocacy Software Freedom Law Centre, India (SFLC), said after reviewing the note. “This is the most sweeping regulatory shift India has ever proposed for digital content, which had wide restraints previously.”
A senior official told The Hindu that the proposal would only be taken forward after the court comments on it, and following a public consultation.
Cinematograph Act
For OTT streaming platforms at least, the proposal would require content to be compliant with the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and be fit for “public exhibition”. The official said that this particular condition would only be applicable to streaming services and not social media. The proposed amendment does not contain this demarcation.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology is holding consultations on mandatory labelling of deepfakes through an IT Rules amendment; the draft amendment floated by the IT Ministry does not include these additions.
The Code of Ethics, which is a part of the IT Rules that has been governing news platforms and “curated” content platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, would have an overarching “Obscenity” heading that would tell online platforms to avoid content that offends “good taste or decency”, presents “criminality as desirable”, shows “indecent, vulgar, suggestive, repulsive or offensive themes”, or has “visuals or words which reflect a slandering, ironical and snobbish attitude in the portrayal of certain ethnic, linguistic and regional groups”. There are seventeen such restrictions.
Rules 9(1) and 9(3) of the IT Rules, which seek to enforce the existing code of ethics for streaming services and news platforms, have been stayed by the Bombay High Court, in a case that is now being heard in the Delhi High Court, along with other challenges to the IT Rules. The note by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry acknowledges that this judicial stay is still active. Ms. Choudhary said the note sought to “revive” the stayed rules.
“The Executive has been irregularly using IT Rules to broaden its powers and establishing a de facto system, which, if the courts heard the petitions, would be found unconstitutional,” Ms. Choudhary said. “Just because the courts are not swift in their decision-making does not mean this structure is acceptable.”
“In order to ascertain whether a content has violated the Code or not, the ‘Community Standard Test’ prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal may be used,” the proposal says in an explanation, “which states that the content satisfies the test if a person, having contemporary community standards does not believe that the work appeals or pleases to the lustful or voyeuristic interest and this Code shall not be applicable to content which has literary, scientific, artistic or political value in its entirety.”
In spite of this explanation, Ms. Choudhary said, the note “expands the definition to include everything under the sun, from Rule 6 of Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act to all that the government disapproves of”.
The proposal came in a case that followed the controversy around comedian Samay Raina, whose YouTube channel was the subject of intense backlash after a joke featuring an incestuous hypothetical dilemma in a paywalled part of Mr. Raina’s channel, made by the social media influencer Ranveer Allahabadia, went viral. The Supreme Court “vide its order dated 03.03.2025 suggested to the Solicitor General of India to deliberate upon and draft such regulatory proposal which may not encroach upon the fundamental right of free speech and expression but, at the same time, which is effective enough to ensure the reasonable restrictions within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Constitution,” the note said.
Published – November 22, 2025 06:32 am IST
