The Union information and broadcasting ministry on Monday issued an advisory to OTT platforms, digital news publishers, and intermediaries, seeking “strict adherence” to the Information Technology Act, 2000, and its rules, after noting instances of non-compliance by various players.
Disaster visuals should be date-stamped, and only Survey of India maps should be used. The identity of sexual offence victims must stay protected under the Supreme Court’s directions in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India. The advisory does not create a new law or amend any rule. Until now, that framework has been the primary means by which the government has asked online publishers to police their own content. The advisory comes at a time when fast-moving events routinely see old clips, doctored images and synthetic media circulate as fresh footage, often before newsrooms can verify them. The advisory does not link its concerns to any particular incident.
It builds on the 2021 IT Rules, which brought digital news publishers and OTT platforms under a Code of Ethics and a grievance redressal structure overseen by self-regulatory bodies and the ministry.
Religious or linguistic communities should be depicted “in their proper context”. The ministry says as much, noting that “unrelated and old videos and clippings” have been passed off as recent events, creating a false impression among audiences. For violent or disturbing visuals, the ministry seeks “due caution, responsibility and editorial discretion”, with blurring or masking suggested wherever warranted. Crime visuals should rest on “verified facts and truth”, and special sensitivity is sought for content involving women and children. Disaster and accident coverage should carry date- and time-stamped visuals “wherever necessary” to avoid panic, and the advisory does not say how either point or the maps rule will be monitored.
The only exceptions are those expressly permitted by law or a court order. For communities, quotations, translations, and allegations must be shown in context, and laws on incitement to violence and the promotion of enmity must be followed. Press freedom groups have in the past questioned executive advisories that are not tied to a specific legal provision, arguing they can influence editorial choices without the scrutiny that a rule or law faces. Supporters of such steps point to the spread of recycled footage and synthetic media during breaking events, and say clear expectations help publishers avoid harm. The advisory itself does not engage with either argument.
On the identity of sexual offence victims, the advisory says the bar covers “any direct or indirect particulars, remote facts, photographs, family details, locality” or other details that may lead to identification.
Because it separates recommended practice from what is already binding law, that distinction matters.
Most of the text is worded as guidance, using terms such as “advised”, “encouraged” and “suggested”. The one firmer line concerns the identity of sexual offence victims, where platforms “shall comply” with statutory protections and Supreme Court directions.
