Democracy vs. Control: The Rise of Government Interference in Indian Media

Government Interference in Indian MediaGovernment Interference in Indian Mediacompeting political ideologies, the Indian media landscape has been central to sustaining this democratic spirit. From the fiery days of the Emergency in 1975, when censorship was imposed with an iron fist, to the digital boom of the 2000s, the press and entertainment industry have always served as vital spaces for dissent, debate, and cultural reflection.

Yet, in the 2020s, a new and troubling trend is emerging. Increasingly, India’s media industry—spanning television, newspapers, cinema, and online platforms—is being drawn under the direct and indirect control of the state. While governments argue that such interventions are necessary for “public order,” “national security,” or “cultural integrity,” critics warn that these moves are threatening freedom of expression and eroding democratic values. The rise of censorship in cinema, tighter restrictions on digital media, and the impending Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill signal an era where the balance between democracy and control is once again being tested.

1. The Historical Context: India’s Battle Between Expression and Authority

To understand current developments, it is important to remember that Indian democracy has always had a tense relationship with freedom of expression. During the Emergency (1975–77), newspapers were forced to submit articles for government approval before publishing. Film censorship was wielded as a political tool to silence dissent and prevent “immoral” or “politically inconvenient” content from reaching the masses.

Even after the Emergency, governments continued to exercise control through the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), state-level bans, and indirect pressure on media houses dependent on government advertising. The arrival of private television in the 1990s and the explosion of the internet in the 2000s created the illusion of limitless freedom. But the last decade shows us that old anxieties remain—only the tools of control have changed.

2. Media as a Political Battleground

Indian media is not just about entertainment; it is political capital. For governments, narratives matter as much as policy. The rise of 24/7 news channels has made perception management central to governance. Critical coverage of government actions can quickly snowball into nationwide debates, while favorable coverage helps legitimize policies.

This explains why successive governments—across the political spectrum—have sought to shape media narratives. Whether through subtle pressure, financial incentives, or direct censorship, the line between governance and propaganda has blurred. In the digital age, this control extends beyond newsrooms and into cinema halls, streaming platforms, and even social media feeds.

3. Cinema Under Siege: The New Era of Censorship

India has always had a turbulent relationship with film censorship. Unlike in the West, where adult ratings allow filmmakers creative liberty, Indian cinema is subjected to a strict approval process. In recent years, the intensity of scrutiny has only grown, with religious and political sensitivities dictating what can or cannot be shown on screen.

Recent Examples of Film Censorship (2024–2025)

1. L2: Empuraan (2025)This highly anticipated Malayalam film faced severe backlash over its portrayal of Hindu-Muslim violence. To secure release, the filmmakers made 24 cuts, including re-editing violent visuals and even changing the antagonist’s name. The move sparked debates about whether art should be allowed to provoke difficult conversations or whether it must always conform to “community harmony.”
   

2. Dhadak 2 (2025)The sequel to the 2018 film faced 16 mandated edits, including the removal of caste-based dialogues and scenes with political overtones. Critics argued that this gutted the very essence of the story, which sought to confront issues of caste and social discrimination.

   
   

3. Superman (2025, James Gunn’s reboot)In a striking example of cultural double standards, the CBFC removed two kissing scenes (one lasting 33 seconds)from the Hollywood blockbuster, citing that they were “overly sensual.” Ironically, more violent or graphic content was left intact, exposing the inconsistencies in censorship criteria.

   
   

4. Manushi (2025)This Tamil political drama was asked to undergo a staggering 37 cuts over alleged community stereotyping and political sensitivities. The filmmaker resisted, leading to a case in the Madras High Court. A judge eventually demanded a private screening before ruling, highlighting how even courts are increasingly drawn into the censorship debate.

Together, these cases illustrate a climate where religious obligations, political concerns, and cultural policing dictate artistic expression. Cinema, which once thrived as a medium of social commentary, is increasingly reduced to sanitized storytelling that avoids controversy.

4. The Digital Shift: OTT and Streaming Under Watch

Initially, OTT platforms like Netflix, Prime Video, and Disney+ Hotstar were celebrated as bastions of free expression. Without the constraints of the CBFC, creators experimented with bold themes, exploring sexuality, caste, religion, and politics with an honesty often absent in mainstream cinema. Series like Sacred Games and Leila ignited passionate debates on politics and identity.

However, by the early 2020s, the government began tightening its grip. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 brought OTT platforms under state regulation for the first time. Complaints against content deemed offensive could now trigger government intervention. Since then, many OTT shows have self-censored, fearing backlash. The new Broadcasting Services Bill is set to take this even further.

5. The New Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill

In late 2023, the government unveiled the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, which is still under review in 2025. If passed, it would radically reshape India’s media ecosystem.

Key Provisions

• Unified Oversight: The bill seeks to replace the outdated Cable TV Networks Act (1995) by creating a single regulatory framework covering cable TV, digital news, OTT platforms, and even individual social media content creators.

• Broad Definition of Broadcaster: Anyone sharing news or current affairs on platforms like YouTube or Instagram could be classified as a “digital broadcaster” and required to register with the government.

• Programme and Advertising Code: All broadcasters would need to adhere to government-defined codes, leaving little room for independent editorial judgment.

• Surprise Inspections and Penalties: Government officials would have powers to inspect offices, seize equipment, and impose fines up to ₹50 lakh. Repeat violations could result in suspension of services.

• Accessibility Mandates: Platforms would need to provide accessibility features such as subtitles and audio descriptions—a progressive step, though overshadowed by concerns about censorship.
  

Industry Reactions

Media industry bodies, journalists, and free speech activists have expressed alarm. While supporters argue that the bill will ensure accountability and curb harmful misinformation, critics warn it could become a tool of political suppression. For example, an independent journalist on YouTube could face the same restrictions as a national broadcaster, effectively stifling grassroots voices.

6. Democracy or Soft Authoritarianism?

These developments raise a critical question: Is India still committed to being the world’s largest democracy, or is it drifting toward a more controlled model of governance?

On the one hand, governments do have legitimate concerns. Hate speech, fake news, and communal propaganda spread rapidly in the digital age, sometimes sparking real-world violence. Regulation is needed. On the other hand, when regulation becomes a blanket tool for silencing dissent, the line between democracy and authoritarianism blurs.

Cinema censorship, OTT restrictions, and the Broadcasting Bill collectively represent more than just administrative reforms—they symbolize a deeper philosophical battle over the role of free expression in Indian society.

7. Global Comparisons

India is not alone in this struggle. In China, censorship is a way of life; no film or digital content sees the light of day without government clearance. In Russia, media outlets that question the state are routinely shut down. Even in Western democracies, debates around “cancel culture,” misinformation, and media accountability are intensifying.

What sets India apart is its democratic promise. Unlike authoritarian regimes, India has constitutional protections for free speech. But as censorship grows, the risk is that India begins to resemble the very systems it once stood against.

8. The Road Ahead: Striking the Balance

The challenge, then, is to strike a balance. India cannot afford unchecked misinformation or hate speech. At the same time, it cannot erode the freedoms that define its democracy.

Possible solutions include:

• Establishing independent regulatory bodies instead of government-controlled agencies.

• Strengthening self-regulation frameworks within the media industry.

• Encouraging public debates on censorship, ensuring that community sensitivities do not become excuses for political interference.

• Preserving judicial oversight, where courts act as guardians of free expression against arbitrary censorship.

The health of Indian democracy will depend on how successfully this balance is achieved.

Conclusion

The increasing government interference in Indian media—through film censorship, OTT regulation, and the proposed Broadcasting Services Bill—marks a turning point in the relationship between democracy and state control. While India’s Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, the reality is that this freedom is being chipped away in the name of national security, morality, and cultural preservation.

The stories of Empuraan, Dhadak 2, Superman, and Manushi show us how fragile artistic freedom has become. The Broadcasting Bill threatens to extend this fragility to every corner of digital media. Unless resisted, India risks losing the very plurality and vibrancy that once made its democracy a beacon for the world.

In the end, the question is not just whether Indian media is free. The real question is: Can Indian democracy survive without a free media?