The Union information and broadcasting ministry on Monday issued an advisory to OTT platforms, digital news publishers, and intermediaries, seeking “strict adherence” to the Information Technology Act, 2000, and its rules, after noting instances of non-compliance by various players.
The advisory flags nine areas, from time-stamping of visuals to AI-generated content, where it wants publishers to exercise greater care. It does not name any platform or cite any specific violation. The move comes less than two weeks after the ministry issued a similar set of directions to private satellite TV channels. It asked channels to time-stamp visuals wherever necessary. That advisory followed an Inter-Departmental Committee finding that many channels aired similar visuals and coverage on the same subjects. Monday’s advisory extends much of the same list to digital news publishers and OTT platforms, which are regulated under a different framework. The advisory does not create a new law or amend any rule. Until now, that framework has been the primary means by which the government has asked online publishers to police their own content. The advisory comes at a time when fast-moving events routinely see old clips, doctored images and synthetic media circulate as fresh footage, often before newsrooms can verify them. The advisory does not link its concerns to any particular incident. On time-stamping, the first of the nine areas, publishers are advised to mark the original date, location and context on all visuals before publishing. Where footage comes from outside sources, the source should be named along with the time-stamp.
The document, numbered DM/40/2026-DM and dated November 2, was signed by Deputy Secretary Arpitha S and issued “with the approval of the competent authority. Copies have been sent to all self-regulatory bodies registered under the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and it has been posted on the ministry’s website. In an advisory dated October 21, it covered AI use in programme production, crime reporting, disturbing visuals, live coverage of security operations, studio debates and maps. It builds on the 2021 IT Rules, which brought digital news publishers and OTT platforms under a Code of Ethics and a grievance redressal structure overseen by self-regulatory bodies and the ministry.
“All the OTT Platforms and the Digital News Publishers are hereby advised to ensure strict adherence to the statutory provisions governing content published on online platforms, in letter and spirit,” the advisory said. The ministry says as much, noting that “unrelated and old videos and clippings” have been passed off as recent events, creating a false impression among audiences. The ministry describes this as a “best practice” and repeats the time-stamp advice in several other sections.
In brief, publishers are asked to time-stamp visuals with the original date, location and context, and to name outside sources, including social media. Violent visuals should be blurred or masked, and headlines, thumbnails and captions in crime coverage should stay faithful to the event. Disaster visuals should be date-stamped, and only Survey of India maps should be used. The identity of sexual offence victims must stay protected under the Supreme Court’s directions in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India. On technology, AI-generated or altered content should be verified and disclosed by digital news publishers. Publishers are asked to avoid disclosing tactical positions, deployment, movement of personnel, and access routes where doing so may compromise an operation or endanger lives. Until an operation ends, they are advised to report lawful information based on periodic briefings by an authorised officer. The only exceptions are those expressly permitted by law or a court order. For communities, quotations, translations, and allegations must be shown in context, and laws on incitement to violence and the promotion of enmity must be followed. On AI, digital news publishers are advised to take reasonable steps to verify AI-generated or materially altered photographs, videos and audio, and to disclose synthetic content shown in connection with real persons or events. This point is addressed only to news publishers and not to OTT platforms. Taken together, the advisory shows a shift in emphasis from what publishers must not carry to how they must present what they carry. It speaks to how a visual is labelled, how a headline or thumbnail is worded, which map is used and when a live event may be covered. These are editorial choices that have largely been left to newsrooms and creators so far, and the ministry is now setting out its expectations for each of them in a single document. The wording leaves room for interpretation. The advisory also covers anyone publishing news and current affairs content on online platforms. Whether that extends to independent creators and individual video makers, who are not mentioned by name, is a question the document does not answer. Press freedom groups have in the past questioned executive advisories that are not tied to a specific legal provision, arguing they can influence editorial choices without the scrutiny that a rule or law faces. Supporters of such steps point to the spread of recycled footage and synthetic media during breaking events, and say clear expectations help publishers avoid harm. The advisory itself does not engage with either argument. For platforms and creators, the practical test will be how the advisory is read alongside the existing rules.
The advisory does not spell out what Rules 3(3) and 4(1A) require of intermediaries.
They are told to avoid real-time disclosure of tactical details in anti-terror operations and to rely on briefings by an authorised officer. Religious or linguistic communities should be depicted “in their proper context”. Intermediaries are separately told to meet their Section 79 duties, with “particular attention” to Rules 3(3) and 4(1A) on synthetically generated information. On anti-terror operations, the advisory says live coverage of security force action is “discouraged”. For violent or disturbing visuals, the ministry seeks “due caution, responsibility and editorial discretion”, with blurring or masking suggested wherever warranted. Crime visuals should rest on “verified facts and truth”, and special sensitivity is sought for content involving women and children. Disaster and accident coverage should carry date- and time-stamped visuals “wherever necessary” to avoid panic, and the advisory does not say how either point or the maps rule will be monitored. On the identity of sexual offence victims, the advisory says the bar covers “any direct or indirect particulars, remote facts, photographs, family details, locality” or other details that may lead to identification. Phrases such as “materially misrepresent” and “wherever necessary” are not defined, meaning the ministry and self-regulatory bodies will, in practice, decide what counts as a lapse. Time-stamping is described as a “best practice”, while protection of victims’ identity rests on binding court directions. Publishers that treat the first as optional and the second as mandatory will be on firmer ground than those that blur the two, though the ministry has not said how it will judge compliance.
Because it separates recommended practice from what is already binding law, that distinction matters.
Most of the text is worded as guidance, using terms such as “advised”, “encouraged” and “suggested”. The one firmer line concerns the identity of sexual offence victims, where platforms “shall comply” with statutory protections and Supreme Court directions.
