Jurisdictional Challenges In Online Content Regulation: The Case Of India’s Got Latent

Introduction:

Jurisdiction means the power accorded to a legal entity to enact and apply laws within a specific geographic territory. In cyberspace, this jurisdiction tends to be unclear due to the decentralized structure of the internet. The transborder character of the Internet has accorded immense social, economic, and political gains to society but has also added tremendous challenges to content regulation, especially in India. Being as enormously diverse as it is in terms of caste, language, religion, and economic status, regulating online content becomes a complex affair. The global spread of the Internet makes it challenging for any country to apply national laws on content that transcends borders.

For example, Indian users can access content which is hosted in another nation, and this poses jurisdictional challenges where domestic laws are different from global conventions. This poses questions of accountability of the online platforms towards content that is against national regulations but originated from somewhere else. While governments, technology platforms, and civil society work to meet these challenges, they will have to address the ambiguities over jurisdiction and law enforcement in the digital environment in order to promote equitable and effective regulation.

India Legal Framework for Online Content Regulation:

In the wake of growing concerns about obscenity and violence on online platforms, especially in the aftermath of the Ranveer Allahbadia row, the Central government is considering a fresh legal framework for regulation. The Union Information and Broadcasting Ministry raised its concern to the parliamentary committee that there is an increasing societal concern that freedom of expression is being abused to put up objectionable material on the internet, calling for a stricter regulation and law to check the dissemination of obscene and violent content[1].

India’s regulatory framework for online content is governed by the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), which includes Sections 67A, 67B, 66E, 69A, 79, 67, and 67C[2]. These provisions include cybercrimes, online obscenity, data privacy and the government’s power to regulate or block content. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has also introduced the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2022[3], which focus on due diligence (Rule 3, Chapter II), grievance redressal (Rule 3(2) & Rule 3A, Chapter II), and content regulation (Chapter III & IV).

The applicability and scope (Rule 8, Chapter I) of these regulations cover intermediaries (social media platforms), key social media intermediaries (SSMIs) (those who have more users than a level defined by the government), publishers of news & current affairs, and publishers of online curated content (like OTT platforms). MeitY governs intermediaries, while the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB) governs digital media platforms.

Under obligations of due diligence (Rule 3, Chapter II), the intermediaries need to publish user agreements, privacy policy, and content guidelines. The intermediaries should take down illegal content within 36 hours of a government or court order, preserve user information for 180 days after deactivating accounts, and hand over data to law enforcement agencies within 72 hours if asked for. Non-compliance leads to the forfeiture of safe harbor protection under Section 79 of the IT Act (Rule 7, Chapter II).

The grievance redressal system (Rule 3(2) & Rule 3A, Chapter II) mandates intermediaries to have a Grievance Officer in India, respond to complaints within 24 hours, and redress them within 15 days. A Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) (Rule 3A, Chapter II) has been established for addressing appeals against the order of the Grievance Officers.

Major Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs) (Rule 4, Chapter II), including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube, are required to fulfill some extra duties. They have to designate a Chief Compliance Officer, a Nodal Contact Person (for law enforcement coordination purposes), and a Resident Grievance Officer. They have to enable user verification, determine the first originator of messages upon order by courts, and submit monthly compliance reports.

For media platforms operating online, Rule 9 of the Code of Ethics (Chapter III) directs the adherence to standards of Press Council of India as well as Cable TV Programme Code. Three-level regulation framework (Rules 13 & 14, Chapter IV) constitutes publisher self-regulation (Level I), industry self-regulation (Level II), and state control (Level III). An Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) (Rules 13 & 14, Chapter IV) is competent to analyze complaints, direct a warning or deletion of the content.

Furthermore, OTT platforms and news publishers (Rules 18 & 19, Chapters V & VI) have to report their operations to the government, provide compliance reports, and disclose content. Digital content can be blocked by the government during an emergency (Rule 16, Chapter IV) on the advice of the MIB Secretary.

Jurisdictional Challenges In Multi-State Disputes Within A Single Country

The  controversy over India’s Got Latent broke out after crass jokes by podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia on the YouTube show prompted several FIRs against him and other contestants under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The cyber police have requested the take-down of all 18 episodes of the show, while YouTube, following directions of the government, has blocked the controversial episode. Allahbadia, who faced police complaints at Guwahati, Indore, and Mumbai, moved the Supreme Court to club the various FIRs. The Court gave him temporary protection against arrest, criticized his comments as shameful, and ordered him to hand over his passport while ensuring there were no further FIRs for the same charge allegations[4].

The case also points out the jurisdictional issues in investigating cybercrime, given that most crimes cut across several states. In India, in the event of a cybercrime crossing state borders, various state police forces tend to stake claim on the grounds of the location of the criminal and the location of the offence. The Information Technology Act grants extraterritorial jurisdiction but has no clear provisions for settling disputes between states. The Ministry of Home Affairs’ Cyber Crime Coordination Centre also has a role to play in coordinating cooperation, but jurisdictional overlaps continue to be a challenge[5].

The intervention of the Supreme Court indicates the necessity for a more centralized legal system to deal with cybercrimes across states. Options could be a centralized model for content regulation, more specific guidelines for intermediaries, and more coordination among the state police organizations. Increasing the authority of the Cyber Crime Coordination Centre can make investigations simpler and prevent the problem of rival jurisdictional claims. The India’s Got Latent case is a reminder of the changing legal challenges of policing online content and weighing freedom of speech against accountability.

Conclusion:

The controversy over Ranveer Allahbadia points to the imperative for an integrated and synthesized legal framework to contain cybercrimes that cut across several states. The current legal provisions, although providing some regulation, do not give precise guidelines to handle jurisdictional disputes among states, leading to inefficiencies and confusion in the enforcement process.

Institutional strengthening of the Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, coordination among state police forces, and clearer intermediary guidelines could ease these issues. While India balances free speech and accountability, it has to ensure a strong regulatory framework capable of responding effectively to the fluid and transnational character of internet content, protecting justice without undermining fundamental rights.

[1] Indian Express 2023, ‘Ranveer-Allahbadia row: Legal framework to regulate digital platforms discussed’, Indian Express, 18 February. Available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/ranveer-allahbadia-row-legal-framework-regulate-digital-platforms-9850311/ [Accessed 24 February 2025].

[2] India Code (2000) Information Technology Act, 2000 (Updated 2023). Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/13116/1/it_act_2000_updated.pdf (Accessed: 24 February 2025).

[3] Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (2022) Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2022. Available at: https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2024/02/IT-Intermediary-Rules-2021-updated-on-28.10.2022-2.pdf (Accessed: 24 February 2025).

[4] The Hindu, ‘Ranveer Allahbadia case: What has Supreme Court previously ruled on onerous conditions and gag orders’, The Hindu, 20 February. Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ranveer-allabadia-case-what-has-supreme-court-previously-ruled-on-onerous-conditions-and-gag-orders/article69237144.ece#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20on,show%20%E2%80%9CIndia%20Got%20Latent%E2%80%9D [Accessed 24 February 2025].

[5] Ministry of Home Affairs, 2023, ‘About’, Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre. Available at: https://i4c.mha.gov.in/about.aspx [Accessed 24 February 2025].

King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys

Click Here to Get in Touch

New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com