Broadcasters back MIB push to remove sector from TRAI, cite need for TRAI Act amendment

The government is evaluating a sweeping overhaul of India’s media-regulatory architecture, with discussions intensifying over whether the broadcasting sector can be formally removed from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) oversight and placed fully under the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB).

Top broadcasters applauded the MIB's proposal to take away TRAI's oversight from the broadcasting sector. Senior officials told Storyboard18 that a proposal initiated by the MIB is now being examined at the highest levels, with a potential implementation timeline of mid-2026. At its core, the debate now hinges on one question: Can the Centre shift broadcasting out of TRAI without amending the TRAI Act — and therefore without going through Parliament?

Legal experts say TRAI’s authority over broadcasting does not flow directly from the Constitution or a specific broadcasting law — it flows from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. The Act defines “telecommunication services,” and through subsequent notifications, broadcasting carriage and distribution were brought under TRAI’s jurisdiction by the government.

Industry players, constitutional experts, and former regulators say the government is exploring the contours of both options.

For over a decade, broadcasters have argued that TRAI’s telecom-driven regulatory philosophy has distorted the broadcasting ecosystem. The recent series of contentious actions — including TRAI’s decision to issue show-cause notices to 250+ broadcasters for violating the 10+2 ad cap despite the Delhi High Court’s stay — has triggered the latest push.

To explicitly delete broadcasting from TRAI’s scope, the government would need to amend Sections 2 and 11 of the TRAI Act.

A senior constitutional lawyer explained, “If the government wants a clean, challenge-proof separation, a TRAI Act amendment is the safest route. That requires Parliament.” Any statutory amendment would reshape the regulatory map unambiguously and is less likely to be overturned in court.

Under Section 2(1)(k) of the TRAI Act, broadcasting was included within TRAI’s domain through a government notification in 2004. Several experts argue that the same mechanism — a rescinding or modifying notification — could remove broadcasting from TRAI without a Parliamentary amendment. “If inclusion happened through notification, exclusion can technically happen the same way.”

But the move is far from risk-free. A senior regulatory lawyer warned, “Any stakeholder can challenge an executive notification as arbitrary or ultra vires. Courts may ask why Parliament was bypassed for a change of this magnitude.”

Historically, regulatory carve-outs of this scale — such as separating insurance from IRDAI or securities from SEBI jurisdiction — have relied on statutory backing.

Experts point to past cases where the government attempted sector re-allocation through notifications alone.

The 2012 attempt to move film certification appellate powers (from the Ministry to a tribunal) through notification was struck down.

The 2021 IT Rules for OTT platforms, notified without a dedicated media law, are still under judicial scrutiny.

The Cable TV Rules restructuring over the years shows that executive notifications can be effective — but are often litigated.

A senior legal executive said, “Every time broadcasting regulation shifted substantially through executive action, the courts were involved. That risk will remain unless Parliament steps in.”

Why the MIB Wants Direct Control

MIB officials believe that broadcasting’s cultural, creative, and consumer-facing nature makes it fundamentally unsuitable for telecom-style regulation. A senior industry body representative said, “Content cannot be regulated like SIM cards. Broadcasting needs a domain-specific regulator, not a telecom-first authority.”

Broadcasters argue the imbalance is worsening:

Linear TV faces strict ad caps and price controls.

OTT platforms enjoy a lightly regulated environment.

Consumers are increasingly platform-agnostic.

A top strategy head at a major network added: “We’re fighting for the same viewer but under two completely different rulebooks. TRAI hasn’t bridged that gap.”

Sources say the Centre is weighing both legal pathways, a full legislative amendment, which would settle the matter conclusively. A more immediate executive notification, which creates speed but invites litigation. If successful, the shift would mark the biggest restructuring of India’s media regulation since the early 2000s.

A senior broadcast industry stakeholder captured the sentiment, “This is not about turf. It’s about fixing a structural misalignment. Broadcasting needs a regulator built for broadcasting.”

For now, industry players are watching closely — aware that the next few months could determine whether India’s media oversight finally evolves to match a rapidly converging digital-broadcast landscape.