A unified framework for broadcasting services under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, could restrict free speech and lead to government overreach, industry stakeholders wrote to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). Associations like the News Broadcasting & Digital Association (NBDA), Indian Broadcasting & Digital Foundation (IBDF), and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) have raised concerns about TRAI’s consultation paper on service authorisations for broadcasting services under the Act.
The NBDA argued that including “broadcast” within the ambit of “telecommunication” would lead to government control over media, fundamentally impacting the definition of free speech.
“[Bringing broadcasting under telecommunications] could result in redefining the very philosophy of ‘free speech’ and make it subject to licensing terms. Broadcast of free speech cannot be construed as an act which requires licensing from the government,” said the NBDA.
Meanwhile, FICCI said that a unified authorisation framework undermines free speech, as broadcasting is an exercise of the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
“Imposing telecommunications-style licensing could risk government overreach, potentially undermining media independence and creative freedom,” FICCI said in its submissions.
It said that the move to bring broadcasting under “telecommunication services” in 2004 was intended to extend TRAI’s jurisdiction over distribution services as a stopgap, not to equate broadcasting with telecommunications. However, licensing broadcasting under the telecom framework now risks undermining free speech and media independence.
Aside from the impact of the consultation paper on overall free speech, the IBDF said that a licensing regime could harm editorial independence.
“The proposed authorisation framework poses significant concerns for editorial independence and creative freedom in broadcasting. The Supreme Court of India, in a series of judgments, has consistently held that any regulation of media must be narrowly tailored and must not create a chilling effect on free speech. The proposed framework risks precisely such an outcome by subjecting broadcasters to a telecommunications-focused licensing regime,” it said.
The IBDF reasoned that broadcasting services “fundamentally differ” from utility-based telecommunication services, which are considered a “scarce public resource.” The association also noted that this distinction was recognized by the apex court in the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) case, which acknowledged broadcasting freedom as an integral part of free speech.
