Introduction:

In Shashank Shekhar Jha and Another vs. Union of India & Others (W.P.(C) No. 669/2024), the Supreme Court of India, on October 18, 2024, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the formation of a regulatory board for OTT platforms. The petitioners argued that OTT content lacks the oversight imposed on theatrical releases, resulting in unequal treatment of films. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, declined to entertain the plea, stating that such matters fall under public policy rather than judicial intervention.

Petitioner’s Contention:

The petitioner, Shashank Shekhar Jha, argued that OTT content is less regulated than theatrical releases. Jha contended that while films released in theatres require certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), OTT films face fewer hurdles, creating a disparity in content regulation. He cited a recent incident in September 2024 where a film released in theatres faced delays due to certification issues, whereas an OTT release occurred without such obstacles, prompting later intervention by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

The petitioner proposed the formation of a Central Board for Regulation of Monitoring Online Video Contents and requested the appointment of a Secretary-level IAS officer to head the board. He emphasized the need to protect public interest, particularly minors, from potentially inappropriate content.

Respondent’s Argument (Union of India):

The Union of India countered that existing regulations under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, provide adequate oversight for OTT platforms. The rules mandate a three-tier mechanism: self-regulation by platforms, oversight by a self-regulatory body, and government-level control. The respondent argued that forming an additional regulatory board would duplicate the current framework and stifle innovation in the digital sector.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court dismissed the PIL, reaffirming that content regulation falls under public policy, a domain for the executive branch, not the judiciary. Chief Justice Chandrachud expressed concerns about the growing number of PILs requesting judicial intervention in policy matters, emphasizing that the judiciary should focus on genuine cases. The court stated that the IT Rules, 2021, already provide a robust regulatory framework and saw no merit in creating a separate board.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s decision reflects its stance on maintaining the separation of powers, leaving content regulation to the government. The court highlighted the sufficiency of existing safeguards under the IT Rules, 2021, and urged restraint in seeking judicial intervention in matters of public policy.