Crackdown on OTT platforms: What’s next after the big obscenity ban?
While the government invoked Section 69A to ban 25 OTT platforms and websites, legal experts say affected players like ALTT and Ullu could challenge the move on grounds of free speech, procedural fairness and proportionality.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Centre’s block on 25 OTT platforms and websites for streaming obscene content has shaken up the digital content ecosystem. But can these platforms fight back? According to legal experts, the answer is yes, provided they can prove that due process was bypassed or that the order violates constitutional safeguards.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has cited provisions from the Information Technology Act (Sections 67, 69A), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Sections 78–81), and the Indecent Representation of Women Act as the legal basis for its action. The move is reportedly the result of a multi-agency consultation and follows repeated warnings and advisories to the concerned platforms.
MIB's crackdown on several OTT platforms on July 25 was not an isolated move, but one directly spurred by a Parliamentary Standing Committee report tabled in the Lok Sabha just a day earlier. The Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology, presented on July 24, 2025, strongly criticized the proliferation of adult content on OTT platforms and urged immediate regulatory interventions.
The report, a follow-up on action taken by the government on previous recommendations, focused heavily on the persistent circulation of obscene and age-inappropriate content through online curated content publishers. It highlighted glaring concerns about inadequate content regulation on OTT platforms, especially those that continue operating by bypassing existing restrictions.
Following which government banned 25 platforms hosting 'soft porn' content including ALTT, Ullu, Desiflix, Big Shots among others. The government highlighted Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which states that intermediaries lose their exemption from liability if they fail to expeditiously remove or disable access to material being used to commit an unlawful act, upon receiving actual knowledge or notification from the appropriate government agency.
The Parliamentary Panel report states, in March 2024, the MIB had already blocked 18 OTT platforms, along with 19 websites, 10 mobile apps, and 57 social media accounts associated with them, for hosting obscene or pornographic content. However, the Committee pointed out that many of these entities had resurfaced by altering IP addresses, names, or using artificial intelligence to cloak their identity.
Notably, the Committee recommended that deterrent punishment be introduced for repeat offenders and sought clarification on whether OTT players circumventing blocks were being strictly dealt with.
The IT Rules, 2021 especially Part III dealing with publishers of online curated content were referenced multiple times in the report. While they require age-based classification, parental locks, and reliable age verification for “A”-rated content, the Committee expressed doubts about the effectiveness of these self-regulatory mechanisms.
It was mentioned that such editorial checks which used to be there in the past are no more there in the era of social media and OTT platforms, leading to freedom of speech being misused to spread vulgar content on OTT platforms and fake news on social media.
But legal experts believe that some of the banned platforms may have grounds to challenge the orders before High Courts or the Supreme Court, especially under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution.
“Courts have repeatedly emphasised procedural safeguards and the principle of natural justice,” said Siddharth Chandrashekhar, Advocate at the Bombay High Court. “If platforms were not given adequate notice, hearing opportunities, or the blocking orders are vague or excessive, then there’s a valid argument under Article 19(1)(a)—freedom of speech.”
Under the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, the government must justify blocking with evidence and proportional reasoning.
Blocking entire platforms, as opposed to specific URLs or shows, may be considered excessive unless public interest concerns are extreme and clearly documented.
“There’s a strong argument around proportionality,” said Chandrashekhar. “The courts may look closely at whether the response fits the alleged violation.”
Vineet Recriwal, CEO of The Native, noted that while the MIB has jurisdiction, any platform can legally contest the scope and method of the ban. “They’d need to show that they were compliant or willing to correct. If repeat violations were not established, they can argue disproportionate targeting.”
However, the challenge won’t be easy.
As Sonam Chandwani, Partner at KS Legal, noted, “The government has acted within the framework of Section 69A and the IT Rules. Unless platforms can prove procedural lapses, a successful reversal may be difficult.”
Still, given the economic stakes— Ullu, for example, had filed for a Rs 150 crore IPO in 2024— and the reputational damage involved, many platforms may find it worthwhile to take the legal route.
Beyond legalities, this battle is also about establishing boundaries in a digital-first democracy.
“Digital liberties shouldn’t be subject to state approval of aesthetics,” Chandrashekhar said. “The courts must now define where regulation ends and authoritarianism begins.”
Sourya Banerjee, Associate Director- Public Policy Comms, Jajabor Brand Consultancy, points out that the MIB order blocking the websites is very detailed and lists previous actions taken against the websites. So while this notice will be challenged, the MIB order is sound in law.
There is, however, an economic side to the argument that needs to be looked into, adds Banerjee.
In 2024 Ullu app filed for a Rs 150 crore IPO, the largest for an SME. This notice by MIB jeopardises their entire IPO plans and disrupts not just the platforms but the entire industry centred around creating content for these platforms. "Platforms like Ullu exist and make money because they have a huge subscription base in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities. Ullu has approximately 27+ lakhs paying subscribers in India. They are platforms meeting consumer demand.
Banning these apps isn't going to automatically make the demand vanish. The demand will more likely move to unregulated platforms."
OTTs: Now Beyond Self-Regulation
In May, the Supreme Court, whilst expressing concern regarding the regulation of content on OTT platforms and social media, urged the Centre to do “something legislative” about the obscene and indecent nature of content streamed through such platforms.
The Supreme Court’s observations had come in the wake of the “India’s Got Latent” controversy, which sparked debate on the need to further align OTT content with laws and ethical guidelines.
While OTT platforms claim to facilitate self-regulation of their content, Recriwal highlights that "we are well past the era of ‘soft-touch’ self-regulation."
"Digital content, especially streaming, is now being treated with the same lens as broadcast, if not stricter. The involvement of ministries like Home Affairs and Women & Child Development signals a broader cultural and legal response, not just a content policy one."
This scrutiny isn’t episodic - it is part of a shift in how the state views content accountability in the streaming economy.
"As for show cause notices, given the scale and gravity of this action, it’s safe to assume multiple warnings, advisories, or internal correspondence may have preceded the ban, even if not all were made public," he added.
Previously, OTT platforms operated under a self-regulatory model as outlined in the IT Rules, 2021, particularly under the three-tier framework for content regulation. However, this incident shows that self-regulation alone is no longer sufficient.
With the growing concern over content harmful to women, children, and social values, Dinesh Jotwani, Co-Managing Partner, Jotwani Associates added that it is likely that one will see more active enforcement, legal scrutiny, and possibly even legislative reform to create a dedicated regulatory regime for OTT platforms.
The involvement of multiple ministries and legal consultations before issuing blocking orders indicates a well-considered and layered approach, rather than a hasty reaction.
