The Information and Broadcast ministry’s Standing Committee has come up with new recommendations on combating fake news. The committee under BJP MP Nishikant Dubey has recommended increased penalties, fines, expedited grievance redressal and an inter-ministerial coordination committee to keep an eye on Big Tech companies and intermediaries like Google, Facebook, X, Youtube etc.

The committee wants the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to consider creating a single, independent monitoring body to handle fake news across all media platforms. This body would include representatives from the ministry and various media stakeholders.

The Standing Committee, noting the lack of a clear definition for "fake news," has asked the ministry to create one. The committee said that this definition must carefully balance the need to combat misinformation with the protection of individual rights and freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the Constitution.

In the draft report titled ‘Review of Mechanism to curb fake news’, the Standing Committee also mentions the Press Council of India’s proposal to amend the Press Council Act of 1978 to combat fake news. The proposed changes would add four new provisions to Section 14(2), making compliance with the Council's directions mandatory and binding for media outlets. The Council could censure them or direct state authorities to suspend their registration or stop government advertisements until a correction is published.

In cases of repeated non-compliance (two censures within six months), the PCI could recommend suspending a media outlet's registration, halting government-funded advertisements, or suspending a journalist's accreditation for up to three months. The Standing Committee has asked the Information and Broadcasting Ministry to set up a Committee of experts to suggest amendments.

Several stakeholders including Editors Guild of India (EGI), Hindustan Times, Network 18 and The Indian Express deposed before the committee, and offered their inputs. The recommendations of the Standing Committee sided largely with the Press Council of India (PCI) – a quasi judicial body, the Press Information Bureau (PIB) – a Union government agency and the News Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA) – a private body overseeing several of India’s news channels.

What is the current grievance redressal mechanism?

For print media, a grievance redressal system is mandated under the Press Council of India Act 1978. The PCI holds inquiry into any complaints including fake news and if norms are found to be violated, the PCI “may warn, admonish or censure the newspaper, editors, journalists etc as the case may be.”

For Electronic media, the Cable Television Network Rules, 2021 provide for a three tier grievance redressal system. Grievances are addressed at the first level by the broadcaster, and at the second level through the broadcaster’s self regulatory body. If unresolved, the matter progresses to level three, where the issue is reviewed by the I&B ministry’s Inter-department Committee (IDC).

Similarly, the same three tier system is also applicable for electronic media under the IT Rules 2021. At the first level, the publisher is notified of any grievance, second level the self regulatory body of publishers and at the third level, an oversight mechanism set up by the Union government comes in.

The report noted that “4300 Digital News Publishers [have a] robust Grievance Redressal mechanism in place.”

What the committee recommends

The Standing Committee has recommended making fact-checking units and internal ombudsmen mandatory across all media—print, digital, and electronic.

It has also asked the I&B ministry to collaborate with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to strengthen the PCI online complaint portal and the PCI itself. The committee asked the ministry to explore the option of having an independent centralized monitoring body “for adjudicating cross-platform fake news cases and recommend penalties.”

The committee noted that out of 919 TV channels permitted by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB), only 318 are members of the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC) and 58 are with the News Broadcasters Federation (NBF-PNBSA), leaving 543 channels outside any self-regulatory body (SRB). The committee asked the I&B Ministry how these unaffiliated channels could be brought under self-regulation. In response, the Ministry said it has introduced a condition in the uplinking/downlinking permissions requiring channels to either join an SRB or set up their own and register it.

This information was communicated to broadcasters on May 30, 2023.

The committee endorsed the NBDA’s view, and recommended that “for making the system of self-regulatory mechanism effective, all TV channels should be brought under its umbrella.”

Powers to Censure

The committee also discussed the "Power to Censure," a power vested with the Press Council of India (PCI) under the Press Council Act, 1978. As per Section 14 of the Act, the PCI is empowered to warn, admonish, censure, or disapprove the conduct of a newspaper, news agency, editor, or journalist. At best, the PCI can censure but they have no punitive powers.

In February 2025, the PCI proposed to amend Section 14(2) to add four provisions to make compliance with its directions mandatory and binding. These proposed changes would allow the Council to direct authorities to suspend registration or stop the release of advertisements in cases of non-compliance.

In effect, the PCI has asked for more powers which could hurt any media organisation economically.

The media stakeholders objected to the PCI’s suggestions while still accepting the need to hold outlets accountable. The EGI for instance, suggested that action against fake news should be in the civil and not criminal law domain. They recommended flagging and labeling fake news, naming and shaming, and monetary fines for egregious cases and a graduated penalty system for offenders based on the frequency of offenses.

The Hindustan Times suggested a hierarchy of actions against offenders: Warning plus public apology, fines, suspensions, and complete blocking. They also highlighted a disparity stating that requirements and accountability are asked of print media (PCI), followed by electronic media, while intermediaries and social media platforms "get away with anything".

The committee observed that penal provisions vary across different media and recommends clearly assigning accountability to editors/content heads, owners/publishers, and intermediaries/platforms.

It also suggests amending penal provisions in relevant Acts/Rules/Guidelines for each media type, emphasizing that such changes should arise from a consensus-building exercise among media bodies and stakeholders.

Big Tech and Safe Harbour

Safe harbour refers to the legal provision under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act, 2000), which provides intermediaries with an exemption from liability for any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by them. In other words, intermediaries like social media platforms YouTube, Instagram and Facebook are not held accountable for information users and media outlets upload on them.

The safe harbour clause however does not apply if an intermediary has conspired, abetted, aided or induced an unlawful act or even if after being notified that certain content is unlawful, they continue promoting it on their platform.

Several media outlets raised the issue of safe harbour.

Hindustan Times advocated for removal of safe harbour protection, and asked that ‘Big Tech’ be treated like media companies. Dubbing technology companies as a ‘black box’, The Indian Express highlighted how the operation of companies are opaque while NDTV argued that aggregators should be treated like publishers with stronger enforcement.

Network 18 took a softer stance as it acknowledged that removing Section 79 could increase censorship. They recommended instead for transparency to be promoted in algorithms.

The committee recommended the I&B ministry to look into the transparency of algorithms through regular audits, redesigning them to expose users to diverse viewpoints and imposing fines and penalties on platforms. They also asked an inter-ministerial coordination committee to be set up for addressing issues pertaining to the Safe Harbour clause and appointing a dedicated Nodal officer for Big Tech companies.

The committee did not recommend abolishing the safe harbour clause.

Alongside this, the committee also recommended using AI tools to curb the spread of misinformation and imposing stricter fines, penalties for repeat offenders, and establishing an independent regulatory body to curb misinformation.

Additionally, the committee also suggested that the ministry emulate practises adopted by foreign countries like France’s law on Election Misinformation, the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act and also suggested setting up an inter-ministerial task force with officials from I&B, External Affairs, Electronics and Information Technology ministries dedicated to curbing fake news.

This report was republished from The News Minute as part of The News Minute-Newslaundry alliance. Read about our partnership here and become a subscriber here.