OTT And Creative Freedom: Getting The Balance Right

The rise of Over-the-Top (OTT) platforms has fundamentally transformed the way India consumes entertainment. Powered by technology and affordable internet, the widespread penetration of smartphones and smart televisions, and an audience with an insatiable appetite for diverse genres, OTT has brought an unprecedented range of content to viewers across the country and in the language of their choice. Indian films and web series are increasingly finding audiences across the world, extending well beyond the Indian diaspora to viewers of diverse nationalities and cultural backgrounds. The COVID-19 pandemic, which confined millions of people to their homes, accelerated this transformation. Six years later, India has a rapidly expanding OTT ecosystem, with nearly 100 platforms. Estimates suggest that India’s OTT video audience crossed 66 crore users in 2026, with more than 17 crore active paid subscriptions.

The OTT revolution has democratised access to content and opened new avenues for creative expression, employment and entrepreneurship, and fresh faces. From Jitendra Kumar’s memorable portrayal of Abhishek Tripathi, the village secretary in the hugely popular Panchayat, to Aneet Padda’s stellar performance as Meenu Rawat in Hunkaar: The Roar, the OTT journey has demonstrated how digital platforms can turn emerging talent into household names. For thousands of young Indians, these platforms have offered not merely visibility and recognition, but also hope, aspiration and meaningful employment. Established film personalities have embraced this new medium just as enthusiastically - Manoj Bajpayee, Pankaj Tripathi, Neena Gupta, Raghubir Yadav, Radhika Apte and Huma Qureshi, to name a few. Filmmakers, too, have carried their creative ambitions into this space. Subhash Kapoor’s Maharani (my all-time favourite!) and Nikkhil Advani’s Freedom at Midnight and The Revolutionaries illustrate this trend. Scriptwriters, cinematographers, editors, music directors, and an extensive range of pre- and post-production professionals have found new opportunities. OTT has, in effect, become the new landing page for those aspiring to make their mark in entertainment. Recognising the growing popularity of this medium, the Government of India instituted in 2023 an award for Best Web Series, acknowledging the contribution of OTT to India’s creative and cultural landscape and the youth power it had generated.

Yet, this remarkable expansion has not been without controversies. Much through 2019 and 2020, concerns were raised about the use of strong language, graphic violence, indecent portrayal of women, usage of vulgar or potentially harmful content, particularly on platforms that could be accessed freely or with minimal restrictions. The Central Government received representations from elected representatives and citizens, alongside concerns raised through writ petitions before the Supreme Court and various High Courts. The challenge was clear: how could the legitimate concerns of viewers, parents and vulnerable audiences be addressed? It was against this backdrop that the Central Government, following extensive consultations with stakeholders, notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, on 25 February 2021. The Rules introduced a framework for OTT platforms with three principal elements: a Code of Ethics along with age-based classification and safeguards (age rating, age gating, parental control, content descriptor, etc.); a three-tier grievance redressal mechanism; and a requirement for publishers to furnish basic information to the Government.

The three-tier grievance redressal mechanism was built around three important principles. First, trust in the capacity of OTT platforms to self-regulate themselves responsibly, exercise mature judgment, establish appropriate internal processes and comply with the laws of the land, particularly those concerning illegal and harmful content and the protection of children. Usage of the word ‘Ethics’ in the Code was deliberate, and intended to encourage a culture of responsibility, self-discipline and moral accountability. Second, independent self-regulation through Self-Regulating Bodies (SRBs), formed the second tier to examine escalated grievances with impartiality and neutrality, and balance the interests of content creators and platforms against the sensitivities of a multi-linguistic, multi-religious, multi-cultural and nation-first ethos of our country, while respecting the core constitutional values. The third tier, the Oversight Mechanism of the Central Government, constituted the ‘last resort’ layer. It recognised that the first two tiers might not always address every grievance adequately or effectively in every instance. Governmental oversight was therefore intended to address such gaps and deal with serious aberrations. Taken together, these elements sought to create a distinctive model of a soft touch co-regulation (probably the first of its kind in the world) : one founded on trust, responsibility and institutional accountability.

More than five years have passed since the Code was notified. There is considerable reason for satisfaction with the manner in which the framework has been received and internalised by most OTT players. The SRBs — the Digital Publishers Content Grievances Council and the Digital Media Content Regulatory Council, both headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court — have played an important role in engaging with platforms, addressing grievances and promoting greater awareness. Their work, alongside the functioning of the Government’s Oversight Mechanism, has contributed to the evolution of this co-regulatory framework. I recall a panel discussion held a few months after the notification of the Rules, on the subject of Cinematographic Films versus OTT. Film personalities and content heads of several OTT platforms expressed considerable apprehension regarding the new grievance redressal mechanism, that it would impose an onerous compliance burden and that the Government might use the mechanism to go after platforms for perceived shortcomings. I sought to allay these concerns. My view was that the grievance redressal framework need not become an excessive burden if implemented in the spirit in which it had been conceived. Time, I believed, would demonstrate the value of that approach. I also emphasised an important distinction: films and web series on OTT platforms were not subjected to pre-certification; rather, the framework relied on self-classification, which itself was a significant expression of trust in the ability of platforms to act responsibly. Given the growing reach of Indian content and the expanding commercial opportunities available to its creators and the platform owners, it is reasonable to regard the experience as encouraging.

Against this backdrop, I was concerned to read a recent statement by prominent filmmaker Tigmanshu Dhulia. While addressing journalists of the Editors Guild of India, he reportedly expressed that filmmakers today were fearful of making films. When a filmmaker of his stature voices such a concern, it merits serious consideration. Such perceptions, whether widely shared or confined to particular sections of the industry, can deter aspiring writers and directors. Similar concerns have also been expressed in informal discussions by some producers and directors working for OTT platforms. It is to be hoped that these concerns are isolated and do not reflect a broader chilling effect on creative expression.

There is another dimension that deserves attention. Most OTT platforms and content producers today have Standards and Procedures (S&P) teams, to review content and assess legal, regulatory and reputational risks. These teams play a valuable role in identifying potential violations, ensuring compliance and strengthening the culture of self-regulation. But there is a possible downside that, in seeking to eliminate every conceivable risk, internal reviews may become excessively legalistic or overly cautious. A few months ago, I jokingly remarked to a prominent owner of an OTT production house that if a script was placed before me, I might recommend fewer amendments than the S&P team—while still ensuring compliance with the letter and spirit of the Code! The remark was light-hearted, but the underlying point was serious: responsible compliance and creative freedom can thrive together.

To allay these fears and apprehensions, the Government could do well to address them proactively through a process of dialogue. Confidence in the regulatory framework is as important as the framework itself. Dialogue can help distinguish genuine regulatory requirements from misconceptions, clarify expectations and build mutual trust. One possible initiative would be for the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to consider constituting an ‘Interface Committee’ comprising five or six eminent persons from the film and entertainment industry, suggested by bodies such as the Producers Guild of India, FICCI and CII. The Committee could function as an informal, institutional, non-statutory platform for periodic engagement with OTT platforms, producers, filmmakers and other stakeholders. Its mandate could include : (i) providing a forum for stakeholders to share concerns, emerging challenges and industry perspectives; (ii) identifying areas where regulatory expectations and industry practices may have diverged; (iii) encouraging responsible self-regulation; and (iv) exploring how the Government can facilitate the growth, competitiveness and international reach of Indian content. Such a Committee would not replace the statutory grievance redressal framework or interfere with the independence of existing institutions. Its value would lie in creating a channel for constructive dialogue, early resolution of misunderstandings and bridging perception gaps between the Government and the creative community.

At the same time, there is scope for the SRBs to adopt a more proactive and technology-enabled approach. Artificial Intelligence and other emerging technologies could assist in identifying potentially problematic content, flagging material for closer examination and prioritising cases that require expert review by teams comprising legal experts and professionals familiar with film, culture and creative expression. A carefully designed system could help identify genuine violations more efficiently, improve consistency in grievance handling and reduce the number of matters requiring intervention by the Central Government. More importantly, it could strengthen the confidence that self-regulation is substantive and effective, rather than merely procedural.