On March 19, Congress MP Sukhjinder Singh Randhawa raised a question in the Parliament regarding whether rules are being violated on OTT platforms and whether the government is proposing any action against OTT platforms for content-related violations. Randhawa also questioned whether information is being sought for age registration on OTT platforms.
Notably, the OTT space is dominated by giants like Netflix, Amazon and Jio,| and the government made sure in its response not to name a single OTT platform. Instead, the response was that Part III of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, provides for a “Code of Ethics" for publishers of OTT platforms and a Grievance Redressal Mechanism to look into complaints relating to violation of this Code of Ethics.
“The Code of Ethics for OTT platforms provides that they will not transmit any content which is prohibited by law for the time being in force and will undertake age-based self-classification of content, based on general guidelines provided in the Schedule to the Rules,” read the government response.
A table denoting the Code of Ethics also provides that a publisher of online curated content shall implement a reliable age verification mechanism for viewership of content or a programme classified under certifications of five categories from U (Unrestricted access) to A (Adults Only). However, what is the reality on the ground?
U for all?
Recently, Marco—a Malayalam film advertised as the most violent in Indian cinema and a box office sensation—was denied satellite TV streaming rights. This decision came after the Central Board of Film Certification rejected the producers' plea to convert its ‘A’ certificate to ‘U/A’ for television broadcast.
Notably, the film ignited debates in Kerala on whether hyperviolence in cinema influences society and if such films contribute to real-life copycat crimes. But was Marco treated differently by the CBFC compared to other violent films in recent years? For instance, Animal, also marketed as a violent film, had its world television premiere on SonyMax. Similarly, Kill, another movie featuring graphic violence, debuted on StarGold.
It has become common practice in various film industries for high-budget films with graphic violence to secure a U/A certification for theatrical release or to have their rating changed from ‘A’ to ‘U/A’ post-theatrical run to qualify for satellite rights. However, that did not happen with Marco, and its TV telecast was blocked.
However, Marco has been allowed to stream on OTT platforms. The government’s Code of Ethics mandates an age verification mechanism, but how effective is it when a child can access such content through an account registered under an adult family member’s name?
Moreover, OTT content is often viewed by family audiences. Why, then, is the same content restricted on television but freely available on streaming platforms?
Another growing concern is piracy. Many films released on OTT platforms are quickly pirated and circulated through messaging apps like Telegram. Children can easily access these platforms, and content removal only happens after user reports or legal intervention. Unlike child sexual abuse material, which is prioritised for takedown, A-rated films often remain accessible for extended periods.
This highlights a clear gap in the government’s regulatory framework. The current system largely relies on parental vigilance rather than platform-enforced safeguards or government monitoring, raising questions about whether stricter measures are needed to prevent children from accessing inappropriate content.
