Imagine you’re sitting on your couch, streaming the latest show on an OTT platform, or maybe you’re scrolling through a digital news website, trying to make sense of a busy news cycle. The content that reaches you—whether it’s a gripping drama, a breaking news alert, or a viral social media clip—isn’t just a matter of chance or creativity. It’s the result of editorial choices, content algorithms, and, importantly, legal obligations. In India, those obligations are laid out in the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the rules that flow from it. And to make sure everyone stays on track, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has issued a fresh advisory to OTT platforms, digital news publishers, and online intermediaries. Dated November 2, 2026, the advisory comes after the ministry observed instances of non-compliance with the IT Act and its subordinate rules by various digital news publishers and OTT platforms. It isn’t a new law, but it is a powerful reminder that existing rules must be taken seriously. The advisory specifically highlights nine areas that deserve particular attention, ranging from the misuse of archival visuals and the coverage of anti-terrorist operations to the publication of graphic images, reporting on communal issues, and the responsible use of artificial intelligence. In many ways, the tone is less about scolding and more about recalibration—a way of saying that while the digital media landscape has evolved rapidly, the underlying legal and ethical expectations have not changed. These are not obscure technicalities; they are issues that affect how millions of people understand their world. The advisory asks platforms to step back and reflect on whether their current practices truly align with the law and with public interest. Whether you’re a small independent news website or a large streaming platform, the same expectations apply. The bottom line is simple: compliance isn’t optional. It’s the cost of doing business responsibly.
One of the most practical reminders in the advisory concerns the visuals that accompany news reporting. In an age where old clips can be recycled and presented as breaking news, the ministry is asking digital news publishers to clearly identify archival, illustrative, and previously recorded photographs and videos. The goal is to prevent viewers from mistaking them for footage of a current event. A recommended practice is to include the original date, location, and context of every visual, so audiences know exactly what they’re looking at. If the material has been sourced externally—especially from social media—the source should be mentioned alongside the timestamp. This may seem like a small detail, but it has enormous implications for trust. Consider how quickly a mislabelled video can spark outrage or spread misinformation. The same principle applies to the coverage of anti-terrorist operations. The ministry advises against live coverage of such operations, warning that real-time updates about tactical positions, deployment, movement of security personnel, access routes, or other operational details could compromise an ongoing mission and endanger lives. Rather than trying to beat security forces to a story, publishers are encouraged to rely on periodic briefings by authorised officers until the operation is over. Date- and time-stamped visuals are again recommended, ensuring that old footage isn’t presented as a live view. The advisory applies similar logic to natural calamities, disasters, major accidents, and other large-scale incidents. In those situations, publishers should use date- and time-stamped visuals wherever necessary, report only verified facts, and avoid triggering unnecessary panic. It’s a reminder that in the rush to break news, accuracy should never be the casualty. For viewers, this translates into a more honest news ecosystem—one in which the images they see on their screens are genuinely connected to the events being described, not just visually similar or exciting. It’s about respecting the audience’s ability to trust what they consume.
Another area that inevitably draws attention is the publication of violent or disturbing visuals. Here, the advisory asks OTT platforms and digital news publishers to exercise genuine editorial discretion. That doesn’t mean hiding the truth—it means thinking carefully about whether a graphic image truly needs to be shown in full, and whether the audience is better served by a version that protects them from unnecessary harm. Wherever necessary, the ministry encourages the use of blurring or masking techniques. This is especially important at a time when a single frame can go viral and reshape an entire conversation. The underlying principle is respect, both for the audience and for the people featured in the content. When a story involves crime or violence, visuals should be based on verified facts, and headlines, thumbnails, and captions should accurately reflect the reported events. Sensationalism, exaggeration, and clickbait are not just poor journalism—they can be harmful. The advisory also calls for additional sensitivity when publishing content involving women and children, who are particularly vulnerable to re-traumatisation through media coverage. It’s a deeply human reminder that behind every shocking image is a person with dignity, a family with feelings, and a story that deserves to be told with care. The goal is not to sanitise unpleasant reality, but to present it responsibly, in a way that doesn’t strip away humanity. Platforms should also consider how violent content appears in recommendation feeds and trending lists; a graphic image that autoplays can be far more damaging than one a user chooses to click on. This is the kind of guidance that should make editors pause and consider: just because we can show this, does it mean we should?
The advisory also turns to the delicate issue of communal relations and the representation of communities. In an online environment where divides can be amplified in seconds, the ministry is asking platforms to be especially cautious when depicting religious, linguistic, and other communities. The instruction is simple: quotations, visuals, translations, and allegations should always be presented in their proper context. This is not about avoiding difficult conversations; it’s about making sure that conversations are grounded in truth and not stripped of nuance. When a statement is taken out of context, it can become a weapon. The advisory also makes a direct reference to applicable laws that deal with incitement to violence and the unlawful promotion of enmity, reminding publishers that the law will hold them accountable if they cross that line. There is also a practical note about maps. Platforms and publishers are advised to use authentic maps of India published by the Survey of India. At first glance, this may seem like a minor administrative detail, but maps that show incorrect borders can create serious legal and diplomatic problems. A map is not just a graphic; it is a statement about territory and national integrity. By asking platforms to use authoritative sources, the ministry is also asking them to be deliberate about the information they circulate. In an era of deepfakes and outrage-driven algorithms, context is everything. The advisory’s message is that responsible publishing requires more than speed and engagement metrics—it requires a commitment to accuracy, fairness, and social harmony, even when the subject is tense or polarising. For a community that feels misrepresented, the harm can linger for years. That’s why the advisory asks platforms to be mindful not only of what they publish but how they frame it. The bottom line is that freedom of expression is not a licence to inflame.
The advisory also brings to the forefront a long-standing legal and ethical obligation: protecting victims of sexual offences. This is not merely a matter of editorial decency—it is a statutory requirement reinforced by Supreme Court directions. The ministry has reiterated that platforms must not disclose a victim’s identity, whether directly or indirectly. That means publishing not just the name or photograph, but also details like family information, locality, or any other particular that could allow someone to piece together the victim’s identity. Exceptions exist only where the law or a court order specifically permits disclosure. In a digital world where social media users are often expert at identifying people from fragmentary clues, this reminder is more important than ever. It’s a matter of protecting vulnerable individuals from further trauma and from the often violent consequences of public exposure. The advisory then shifts to one of the most challenging issues of the current era: artificial intelligence. With AI tools now capable of creating highly realistic fake videos, manipulated photographs, and synthetic audio, the risk of misinformation has grown exponentially. Digital news publishers are advised to take reasonable steps to verify AI-generated or materially altered content before publishing it. If the content is presented in connection with real people or events, appropriate disclosures should be made. The underlying goal is to prevent audiences from being fooled, and to stop synthetic content from being dressed up as authentic news footage or statements. This is a fast-moving landscape, and the ministry’s guidance acknowledges that publishers need to be vigilant—and transparent—when using AI in their work. For OTT platforms, this also applies to promotional materials, teasers, and trailers—anything that could mislead viewers about what is real and what is synthetic. After all, technology should help us tell the truth, not fabricate it.
Finally, the advisory doesn’t forget the unique responsibilities of intermediaries—the platforms that host, transmit, or store content. Under Section 79 of the IT Act and Part II of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, these entities carry due diligence obligations. The ministry specifically highlights the applicability of Rules 3, 4, and 5, with particular attention to the rules concerning synthetically generated information under Rules 3(3) and 4(1A). In plain terms, intermediaries are expected to be more than passive conduits. They are expected to actively take down unlawful content when required, preserve records, respond to lawful requests, and ensure that their notices, processes, and user interfaces meet legal standards. This is a heavy responsibility, and it grows heavier as content volumes expand. That is why the advisory also calls on OTT platforms and digital news publishers to strengthen their editorial and content-review mechanisms. The ministry recommends that personnel involved in content creation and publishing be adequately sensitised to the IT Act, its associated rules, and other applicable laws. This isn’t just a one-time training; it should be an ongoing practice. Workshops, training programmes, and sensitisation sessions are explicitly encouraged as part of these efforts. This is perhaps the most human element of the advisory: it recognises that compliance doesn’t happen automatically. It happens through people—editors, reviewers, moderators, content creators, and executives—who understand both the letter of the law and the ethical context in which they work. It also means creating a culture where responsible content is valued and rewarded, not just speed and virality. Ultimately, this advisory is a call for a more thoughtful, careful digital media landscape. It’s not about censorship or stifling creativity; it’s about ensuring that the platforms we trust with our attention are trustworthy in return. In a time when information spreads at the speed of a click, that kind of responsibility matters more than ever.