UPSC Essentials | Mains answer practice — GS 2: Questions on regulation of content on OTT platforms and ceasefire (Week 102)

QUESTION 1

The Supreme Court recently expressed worry about the regulation of content on OTT platforms, calling for legislative action to address obscene and immoral material. Discuss the issues of regulating OTT material in India, taking into account regulatory organisations’ overlapping authorities and the need to balance free expression with societal sensitivities.

QUESTION 2

With reference to the India-Pakistan ceasefire, discuss the meaning of a ceasefire and what international law says about a ‘breach’ of ceasefire.

General points on the structure of the answers

Introduction

— The introduction of the answer is essential and should be restricted to 3-5 lines. Remember, a one-liner is not a standard introduction.

— It may consist of basic information by giving some definitions from the trusted source and authentic facts.

Body

— It is the central part of the answer and one should understand the demand of the question to provide rich content.

— The answer must be preferably written as a mix of points and short paragraphs rather than using long paragraphs or just points.

— Using facts from authentic government sources makes your answer more comprehensive. Analysis is important based on the demand of the question, but do not over analyse.

QUESTION 1: The Supreme Court recently expressed worry about the regulation of content on OTT platforms, calling for legislative action to address obscene and immoral material. Discuss the issues of regulating OTT material in India, taking into account regulatory organisations’ overlapping authorities and the need to balance free expression with societal sensitivities.

Note: This is not a model answer. It only provides you with thought process which you may incorporate into the answers.

Introduction:

— The Supreme Court, while expressing concern about the regulation of content on Over the Top (OTT) platforms and social media, encouraged the government to do “something legislative” about the obscene and indecent quality of content transmitted through such platforms.

— The Supreme Court’s comments come in the aftermath of the recent “India’s Got Latent” incident, which generated discussion about the need to further connect OTT programming with laws and ethical requirements.

Body:

You may incorporate some of the following points in your answer:

— Most definitions of OTT refer to it as a media service that is offered over existing communication infrastructure, such as the internet, at the request of individual users. Because of the hybrid nature of OTT streaming, efforts to regulate the field have led in a turf war among the holy trifecta: the Ministry of Information Technology (MeiTY), the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).

— With the development of OTT content consumption after 2020, MeiTY issued the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, to govern intermediaries, OTT platforms, and digital news media organisations.

— The 2021 Rules established a Code of Ethics (Code) for such businesses, requiring them to meet particular due diligence duties, such as creating a three-tier regulatory structure. According to the Code, the first layer is self-regulation by the intermediary/publisher; the second tier is regulation by a self-regulating body of publishers; and the third tier is regulation by an interdepartmental committee to exercise oversight, hear and investigate concerns.

— Despite efforts to police offensive content on OTT platforms, the Code has been viewed as a set of guidelines with no consequences for noncompliance.

— The Code failed to account for the level of autonomy that OTT content providers had over their platform and content. This autonomy applies to both infrastructure and finance.

— To develop a comprehensive legal framework for all broadcast content, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting wanted to include OTT platforms and digital news channels in its Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023.

— Broadcasting requires control of both the end-to-end infrastructure and the content broadcast on it, whereas OTT streaming does not focus on the infrastructure (internet) over which it is distributed.

— Support for structured regulation of OTT platforms and content has grown, not just through judicial backing, but also through internationally accepted methods. Because of the nature of these platforms, there is a risk of spreading harmful content to the public.

Conclusion:

— The concepts of “morality” and “obscenity” are always developing. They vary depending on location, time, and the recipient’s sensibility. The voices of people from marginalised communities or vulnerable groups should be acknowledged to ensure that critical depictions of societal practices or atrocities are not muted by excessive content regulation. Content-based guidelines must include a review clause that ensures that content control is reassessed on a regular and intentional basis in order to remain relevant to social reality.

— There is unquestionably a need to establish soft-touch regulatory frameworks to oversee the information delivered on OTT platforms. While extending censorship and film certification standards to OTT content may be impractical, age-based classification should be strictly enforced.

(Source: The ‘who’ and the ‘how’ of OTT content regulation)

Points to Ponder

Read more about regulations on OTT

Related Previous Year Questions

Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy. (2017)

QUESTION 2: With reference to the India-Pakistan ceasefire, discuss the meaning of a ceasefire and what international law says about a ‘breach’ of ceasefire.

Note: This is not a model answer. It only provides you with thought process which you may incorporate into the answers.

Introduction:

— According to Françoise Bouchet-Saulnier’s book The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law, a ceasefire is an agreement between nations participating in a conflict that seeks to control the cessation of all military activity “for a given length of time in a given area”.

— A cease-fire does not mean an end to hostilities. It denotes a ceasefire, or “a temporary suspension of hostilities,” in both international and non-international armed confrontations. They also “do not reflect a juridical end to the state of war,” according to the paper.

Body:

You may incorporate some of the following points in your answer:

— While there is no official definition of a ceasefire, Sydney D Bailey, an author and international affairs expert, as quoted in an Oxford encyclopaedia entry, defines it as “suspension of acts of violence by military and paramilitary forces, usually resulting from the intervention of a third party.” Ceasefires can be formal or informal.

— Before the United Nations Charter was adopted in 1945, the phrases ‘truce,’ ‘armistice,’ and ‘peace treaties’ were used differently. However, the UN’s flexible use of the phrase ‘ceasefire’, along with the collapse of pre-Charter conceptions, led to the usage of these terms interchangeably, according to the article in Oxford Public International Law.

— Ceasefire agreements, both in cases of international and non-international armed confrontations, include: timing of initiation, Identification and Definition of Prohibited Acts Physical separation of armed troops, including the establishment of ceasefire lines and/or buffer zones, Verification, supervision, and monitoring. Besides these significant phrases, it also contains “repatriation of prisoners of war; return of missing — internally displaced persons and refugees; restitution and compensation of claims;” among other measures.

— A ceasefire, or a break of a ceasefire, has no legal implications because the agreements are viewed as a first step towards peace. During times of conflict, humanitarian law is primarily concerned with regulating the “use of violence and the protection of civilians.”

— The remedies for a ceasefire violation are defined in the Regulations Respecting the Law and Customs of War on Land, generally known as the Hague Regulations, which were adopted in 1910.

— According to the encyclopaedia entry for the Oxford Public International Law, Article 36 of the Hague Regulations states that if an armistice or ceasefire does not specify its duration, “the belligerent parties may resume operations at any time, provided that the enemy is warned within the time agreed upon.”

Conclusion:

— A major infringement of a ceasefire by one of the parties concerned allows the other the authority to condemn it and, in urgent instances, to resume hostilities immediately, according to the entry, which cited Article 40 of the Regulations.

— A violation of the ceasefire terms by “private persons acting on their own initiative” allows the “injured party to demand the punishment of the offenders or, if necessary, compensation for the losses sustained,” according to Article 41.

(Source: India-Pakistan ceasefire declaration: What exactly is a ‘ceasefire’)

Points to Ponder

Read more about ceasefire

Read more about Hague Regulations

Related Previous Year Questions

India has a long and troubled border with China and Pakistan fraught with contentious issues. Examine the conflicting issues and security challenges along the border. Also give out the development Programme (BADP) and Border Infrastructure and Management (BM) Scheme. (2024)

Previous Mains Answer Practice

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 3 (Week 102)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 3 (Week 101)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 2 (Week 100)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 2 (Week 101)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 1 (Week 100)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 1 (Week 101)

Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.