OTT Regulation: The Code of Ethics for Digital Media Platforms

This article is written by Neeraj Jain, Siksha O Anusandan National Institute of Law, Bhubaneswar, BALLB(H), 3^rd Year during his internship at LeDroit India.

Scope of Article

• Evolution of OTT platforms in India and regulatory vacuum
• Information Technology Rules, 2021: Framework and Code of Ethics
• Three-tier self-regulatory mechanism for publishers
• Landmark and recent case laws on OTT content
• Constitutional challenges under Article 19(1)(a)
• Recent developments, advisories, and bans (2025)
• Comparative analysis and future recommendations 

Keywords

OTT regulation, IT Rules 2021, Code of Ethics, self-regulation, digital media publishers, grievance redressal, Article 19(1)(a)

Abstract

The content-consumption in India has been transformed under meteoric by the new phenomenon of the Over-The-Top (OTT) service, which has reached consumers without the intervention of the traditional broadcasting gatekeepers such as the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). But this and unregulated space created a question about the obscene, vulgar, and age-inappropriate content, and led the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to inform the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021). The focal point of OTT regulation is the Code of Ethics, which obligates the publishers of online curated content, including Netflix and Amazon Prime to categorize programs (U, U/A 7+, U/A 13+, U/A 16+, A), child controls, as well as prevent depictions that violate the sovereignty, social order and decency. The three-level system of grievances would create the self-regulation of the company and can lead to the state control. Such landmark cases as Kunal Kamra v. Union of India review these rules constitutionality against free speech notwithstanding Article 19(1)(a) and protection of the society. The latest 2025 warnings through controversies such as India has latent and prohibitions to 25 sites emphasize the vigor in the enforcement. This paper deconstructs the provisions of the Code, judicial interpretations and effectiveness in promoting responsible digital media in avoiding the pitfalls of censorship. To elaborate further, these rules represent a pivotal shift in India’s digital governance landscape, addressing the explosive growth of OTT platforms that bypass traditional censorship mechanisms while introducing structured self-regulation to safeguard public interest without outright pre-censorship. This balance is crucial as OTT users surged to 601 million in 2025, highlighting the scale of regulatory need.

Introduction

There has been an explosion of OTT platforms in India which may have over 500 million subscribers by 2025 due to the cheap internet and the disruption of Jio. Compared to cinemas which are registered by CBFC under the cinematograph act 1952, OTT content was never subject to scrutiny before it got published thus allowing unedited explicit content to be viewed without any restrictions. The IT Act, 2000 was majorly aimed at cybercrimes but was not sensitive to the digital media standards. Filled with scheme on February 25, 2021, by IT Rules, 2021, under Section 87(2), this gap is addressed, subjecting a Code of Ethics on publishers of the online curated content, namely, those that operate catalogs of audio-visuals in a systematic manner on-demand. Such a self-regulatory paradigm, which is still administered by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), attempts to restrict obscenity under Section 67 IT Act, Section 294 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 without necessarily being obstructed through censoring. The overreach is a point of criticism, but the users are empowered through the grievance levels. This framework not only mandates classification and access controls but also integrates due diligence requirements for intermediaries, ensuring a multi-layered approach to content moderation that has evolved with amendments up to 2025 and 2026. For instance, platforms must now prominently publish rules in multiple languages and handle complaints swiftly, reflecting responsiveness to India’s diverse user base.

Evolution of OTT Regulation

OTT has been self-regulating in a laissez-faire manner before 2021 with upsurges in child pornography and fake news. Shreya Singhal, 2018 case (Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 5 SCC 1, invalidated Section 66A IT Act due to being vague and recommended moderate intermediary liability under Section 79. The MeitY used the rule-making powers after the pandemic, when 1.2 billion Aadhaar-linked viewers became possible. Rules on IT, 2021, replace guidelines of the 2011 year, categorizing intermediaries and requiring ethics codes. In 2023, Fact Check Units (stricken down in Kunal Kamra) and online gaming were amended, with modifications to blocking transparency in 2025. The age-gating is reflected in the Audiovisual Media services Directive in the EU, but there is no second model in the world like the hybrid model of self-government in India that includes age common measures of PCI in news and tailor-made ethics in OTT. This evolution underscores a progression from reactive cybercrime focus to proactive content ethics, influenced by global surges in digital consumption and local challenges like misinformation during the pandemic, culminating in layered oversight that distinguishes OTT from news media.

IT Rules, 2021: Architectural Framework

Applicability and Definitions

Part III is aimed at publishers operating in India or operating in such a way systematically addressing India (Rule 8). Online curated content does not contain news, but generally includes such owned/licensed content as films/series owned by publishing companies such as Disney+ Hotstar (Rule 2(q)). The intermediaries (Rule 2(w)) engaged in due diligence (Rule 3), which disallows child-harmful uploads (Rule 3(1)(b)) and obscene uploads (Rule 3(1)(b)). Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs greater than 5M users) have officers who are based in India (Rule 4). These definitions are meticulously crafted to target systematic publishers, excluding user-generated content or individual uploads, thereby focusing regulation on commercial OTT entities while preserving Section 79 safe harbour for compliant intermediaries. Recent 2026 updates further refine terms like ‘synthetically generated information’ to combat deepfakes, expanding due diligence to AI-altered content.

Code of Ethics: Core Mandates (Appendix to Rules)

Publishers must:

• Category Content: As Schedule as U (universal), U/A 7+/13+/16+ (parental guidance), A (adult). Some descriptors include nudity, violence, drugs, horror (Rule 11(4)). Let out ratings prior to access (Rule 11(5)).
• Ages Controls: A/U/A 16+: Age-verification of A/U/A by tech/password; no unverified children allowed (Rule 2(a)).
• Banned Preoccupations: Incitement to sovereignty, social instability, sexual affronts, imitable suicides, tobacco glamorisation (Appendix I).
• Practicality: Subtitles, audio descriptions on disabled (Rule 2(b)).

As an example, graphics simulation series of rape requires A-rating and locking, otherwise it will be irresponsible. Any non-adherence will be viewed as forfeiture in relation to liability before Section 79 safe harbour. These mandates align with broader prohibitions under Rule 3(1)(b), such as against paedophilic or obscene material, and have been bolstered by 2025-2026 amendments emphasizing proactive technical measures against harmful AI-generated content. Platforms like Netflix exemplify compliance by implementing parental controls and descriptors, reducing exposure to inappropriate material.

Three-Tier Grievance Redressal Mechanism

Level I: Publisher Self-Regulation (Rule 11)

select India-based Grievance Officer; act on complaints within 24 hours; within 15 days (Rule 10(3)(a)). Become Level II. E.g., the levels in Netflix allow an officer to deal with takedown requests.

Level II: Self-Regulatory Bodies (SRBs) (Rule 12)

Independent (ie retired judge-headed, not more than 6 experts) bodies become registered by MIB. Make issue advisories after 15-day review (Rule 10(3)(d)). Digital News Publishers Association is a good example. SRBs follow-up since India has misplaced numbers after India has latent.

Level III: Govt Oversight (Rule 13-14)

With Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC, headed by Secretary) MIB scrutinizes appeals within 15 days, gives directions. Secretary blocked (Rule 16) under Cabinet Secretary-review. 2025 MIB advisory restated the ethical compliance in vulgar content spikes.

This mechanism ensures swift resolution—acknowledgment in 24 hours, disposal in 7-15 days per updates—with MIB overseeing OTT specifically, distinguishing it from MeitY’s social media role.

Judicial Scrutiny: Landmark and Recent Cases

Landmark: Balancing Free Speech

Shreya Singhal v. UOI struck down ambiguous curbs, letting takedowns be based on the actual knowledge of intermediaries – IT Rules are met through a court order (Rule 3(1)(d)). Ranjit D. Udeshi v. Justification of ethics code was upheld by State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 881, which supported ethics code by banning obscenity (since then BNS §294). These precedents establish that content restrictions must be precise, influencing IT Rules’ design to require court orders or authorized notices for takedowns.

Constitutional Dimensions

Article 19(1) (a) safeguards speech; limitations selected by 19(2) (decency, public order) legitimize Code. However, broad descriptors are prone to over Broadness: create the danger of chilling effect PRS observes subjectivity in harmful to child. The modest tailoring required by proportionality (Puttaswamy, privacy right) is violated in WhatsApp v. Traceability pending SC). Courts uphold self-regulation in lieu of pre-censorship. Challenges like Kunal Kamra highlight ongoing debates on vagueness, yet self-regulation is favoured to avoid direct state censorship.

Recent Developments and Challenges

In 2025, there was 25 OTT bans on women-indecency (MIB directive) which instilled ethics through SRBs. Stricter classification was ordered by advice post-Ranveer Allahbadia row. Issues: Startup compliance fees, deepfake floods, resistance of global platforms. 2025 Amendments will favour a block to proportionality. Efficacy: Less vulgar uploads, still piracy. The bans targeted platforms like Ullu for obscene content, signaling robust enforcement amid deepfake concerns addressed in 2026 rules.

Comparative Analysis

The Indian model is between the US First Amendment absolutism (low OTT regulation) and the Ofcom in the UK (statutory OTT control). EU AVMS Directive has EU content of 20% required, age-gates; India focuses on self-government similar to PCI. The Infocom Act in Singapore reflects the levels of grievances. The hybrid in India is good in scale and requires FCU level clarifications.  India’s emphasis on self-regulation with government backstop uniquely suits its vast, diverse market, differing from EU quotas or UK’s direct oversight. 

Recommendations

• Ethical proactive classification Mandate proactive classification using AI with human oversight (Rule 4(4)).
• Unity SRB charter to provide uniformity.
• Jurisdictional education of the digital ethics.
• Child friendly tech.
• Refine creativity without choking innovation.

Additional measures could include mandatory AI labelling for synthetic content and periodic MIB audits to enhance uniformity across SRBs.

Conclusion

Code of Ethics of IT Rules promises the realization of mature OTT ecosystem, balancing between innovation and accountability. The constitutionality is guaranteed in the course of judicial vigilance as the enforcements of 2025 demonstrate. The future of tech-infused self-regulation. With ongoing amendments, this framework continues to adapt, fostering responsible content while protecting free expression.

As it has developed via amendments it now implicates AI-based classification and grievance accelerated schedules, where platforms such as Netflix and Disney Plus Hotstar identically and promptly avert even malicious arrangements such as deepfakes and obscenity and embody genuine expression. The judicial precedents such as the Shreya Singhal case still have their basis upon these rules and ban excessive reach by ensuring due processes on the basis of Article 19(2) that emphasizes proportionality and actual knowledge over unspecified restrictions. Even with such issues as the cost of compliance on startups and opposition of global platforms, the indicators of efficacy demonstrate that less vulgar content is uploaded after the bans of 2025, but piracy has become a major obstacle.

Finally, the hybrid self-regulatory model puts India in an unprecedented position when it comes to global digital governance, a laissez-faire approach of the US with a statutory rigor of the EU, and a scalable accountability approach in the context of 600+ million users. Further integration of ethics and innovation, such as shared SRB charters and child safety technology requirements, will be applied in the future and regulated by a Supreme Court to prevent the pitfalls of censorship. These regulations augur a proper digital media time with data affordability as OTTs are penetrating the market, enhancing user control, social protection, and constitutional rights.

With Jio-led low-cost data and an 5G rollout, these regulations will result in a responsible digital media environment, empowering its users with parental controls, vulnerable populations in accordance with the BSN Section 294, and the constitutional freedom without per versifying the creative economy that has generated spin-offs in India.