Listen to the article
Parliamentary Committee Proposes Sweeping Media Reforms to Combat Fake News
A parliamentary Standing Committee has recommended mandatory fact-checking units and internal ombudsmen across all media platforms in India, signaling a potential shift in how news organizations will be regulated in the country’s evolving media landscape.
The committee has urged the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) to work alongside the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to strengthen the Press Council of India’s (PCI) online complaint portal. Going further, it proposed exploring an independent centralized monitoring body that would adjudicate cross-platform fake news cases and recommend penalties.
In its assessment of the current regulatory framework, the committee highlighted a significant oversight gap in broadcast media. Of the 919 television channels permitted by the I&B Ministry, only 376 are affiliated with self-regulatory bodies—318 with the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC) and 58 with the News Broadcasters Federation (NBF-PNSA). This leaves 543 channels operating outside any formal self-regulatory mechanism.
Addressing this regulatory void, the I&B Ministry disclosed that it introduced a new condition in May 2023 requiring all channels to either join an existing self-regulatory body or establish and register their own. The committee endorsed the National Broadcasters and Digital Association’s view that bringing all TV channels under a self-regulatory umbrella is essential for effective industry oversight.
The committee also examined the PCI’s censure powers, which currently allow it to warn, admonish, or disapprove the conduct of a newspaper, news agency, editor, or journalist—but without punitive authority. In February 2025, the PCI proposed amendments to Section 14(2) of the Press Council Act that would make compliance with its directives mandatory and binding, potentially allowing for suspending registrations or halting advertisements to non-compliant organizations.
Media stakeholders have expressed concerns about these proposed enhancements to the PCI’s authority. The Editors Guild of India suggested keeping fake news within civil rather than criminal law domains, recommending graduated penalties including flagging, public shaming, and monetary fines for repeat offenders.
Hindustan Times proposed a hierarchy of actions against offenders, starting with warnings and public apologies, then escalating to fines, suspensions, and complete blocking of content. They also pointed out a regulatory imbalance where print and electronic media face greater scrutiny while digital platforms “get away with anything.”
The committee noted the inconsistency in accountability standards across different media types and recommended clearly delineating responsibilities among editors, publishers, and platform intermediaries. It emphasized that any amendments to existing regulations should emerge from consensus-building among media stakeholders.
The report also addressed the contentious issue of “safe harbour” provisions under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, which shields intermediaries like social media platforms from liability for third-party content. While several media organizations called for the removal of these protections, Network 18 cautioned that such action could increase censorship.
Instead of recommending the abolition of safe harbour provisions, the committee proposed algorithm transparency through regular audits, redesigning algorithms to expose users to diverse viewpoints, and imposing fines on platforms that fail to comply. It suggested forming an inter-ministerial coordination committee to address safe harbour issues and appointing nodal officers to liaise with technology companies.
The committee further recommended leveraging artificial intelligence tools to curb misinformation, imposing stricter penalties for repeat offenders, and establishing an independent regulatory body. It also suggested emulating international practices like France’s law on Election Misinformation and the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act.
As India grapples with the proliferation of fake news across traditional and digital platforms, these recommendations represent a significant attempt to harmonize regulatory frameworks and enhance accountability in the country’s media ecosystem. The proposals, if implemented, could fundamentally reshape media regulation in one of the world’s largest and most diverse information environments.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
This is an important issue that deserves serious attention. Combating media misinformation is critical for an informed citizenry. The proposed reforms seem aimed at increasing accountability and transparency, which is a positive step.
I agree, media self-regulation is not enough. An independent oversight body could help ensure consistent standards across platforms.
It’s good to see the government taking proactive steps to address the growing problem of media misinformation. A multi-pronged approach targeting both supply and demand-side issues seems appropriate.
Absolutely, tackling the root causes on both the production and consumption sides is likely the most effective way to combat the spread of fake news.
Regulating 543 unaffiliated TV channels is a significant challenge. Strengthening the PCI’s complaint process is a good start, but more comprehensive reforms may be necessary.
I’m curious to see how the government plans to address the regulatory gap in broadcast media. Coordinating between the I&B and IT ministries could be crucial.
Mandatory fact-checking and internal ombudsmen are welcome measures, but the devil will be in the details of how they are implemented. Harsher penalties need to be balanced with protecting press freedoms.
A centralized monitoring body could be a double-edged sword. It would need robust safeguards to prevent political interference or overreach.
While the goal of combating fake news is laudable, the risk of overreach and stifling press freedom is concerning. Careful implementation will be crucial to balance these competing priorities.
That’s a valid concern. Safeguards against abuse of the proposed powers will be essential to ensure the reforms don’t undermine the free press.
The recommendation for an independent centralized monitoring body is intriguing, but its success will depend on the details of its mandate and composition. Ensuring its impartiality will be critical.
Agreed, the independence and transparency of such an oversight body will be key. Its decisions and processes should be subject to public scrutiny.
The proposed measures seem aimed at tackling the spread of misinformation, but I wonder if they go far enough. Educating the public on media literacy could be an important complementary effort.
Agreed, empowering citizens to critically evaluate news sources is key. Relying solely on regulatory action may not be sufficient.
Strengthening self-regulatory mechanisms like the BCCC and NBF-PNSA is a good starting point, but the lack of participation by over 500 TV channels is a major concern that needs to be addressed.
Absolutely, the government will need to find ways to incentivize or compel the unaffiliated channels to join self-regulatory bodies and adhere to established standards.