AI in TV Content: I&B Ministry Advisory
Why in News?
- On 21 October 2026, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry advised all private satellite TV channels to use artificial intelligence tools with due caution in their programmes, News On AIR reported.
- The letter asks channels to use AI only as an assistive tool, without compromising accuracy, authenticity or sensitivity, and to follow the Programme Code.
- It also asks them to strengthen editorial review and train staff regularly, and to base crime and violence coverage on verified facts.
- The Ministry says an Inter-Departmental Committee found telecasts on various channels not in conformity with the spirit of the Programme Code.
Key Terminologies
- Programme Code
- The set of content standards that TV channels must follow, prescribed under the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994.
- Inter-Departmental Committee
- A committee set up under the Cable Television Networks (Amendment) Rules, 2021, which examines channel content against the Programme Code.
- Synthetically Generated Information
- Audio, visual or audio-visual content created or altered artificially or algorithmically so that it appears real. The IT Rules, 2021 were amended in February 2026 to cover it.
- Advisory
- A formal letter that tells regulated bodies what the Government expects. Enforcement, when needed, relies on the underlying Act and rules.
Key Issues
- Legal Basis: The Ministry links the advisory to the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, and can act on violations under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, according to News On AIR on 21 October 2026.
- Speech Limits: Article 19(1)(a) protects free speech, and Article 19(2) permits only reasonable restrictions on grounds such as public order, decency or morality and defamation. Any binding step on AI use must fit these listed grounds, which is an analytical point.
- Vagueness Test: In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as overly broad. A test of "spirit" of the Programme Code or "due caution" in AI use could face a similar clarity question, which is an inference.
- Authenticity Risk: The IT Amendment Rules, 2026, notified on 10 February 2026, require clear labels on synthetic content and bar removal of labels and metadata, as the Tribune and News On AIR reported. These rules address intermediaries, so broadcasters rely on the Programme Code.
- Crime Coverage: The advisory asks channels to base crime and violence reports on verified facts and report them in a balanced, responsible way. Verification is difficult when AI tools can generate realistic images, which is an analytical point.
Key Implications
Positive/Pros/Merits
- Accuracy Safeguard: Asking channels to use AI only as an assistive tool, without compromising accuracy, protects viewers from fabricated images or voices in news.
- Capacity Building: Regular workshops and sensitisation on the Programme Code build staff awareness at the level where errors are made.
- Policy Coherence: The advisory matches the India AI Governance Guidelines of 5 November 2025, whose Principal Scientific Adviser described "Do No Harm" as the core approach, according to the Tribune.
Negative/Cons/Demerits
- Legal Weight: An advisory is not a rule, so channels may differ on what "due caution" requires, and the Ministry would have to rely on the Act for enforcement.
- Chilling Effect: Broad terms such as "sensitivity" and "spirit of the Programme Code" may lead to over-caution in newsrooms, which is an analytical risk.
- Overlap: Broadcasters, digital platforms and the IT Rules 2026 each have separate obligations, which can confuse compliance when the same AI content moves across platforms.
- Oversight Concern: The Inter-Departmental Committee is a government body, so critics may ask for an independent review stage. This is a point of debate, not a finding.
Key Initiatives
- Programme Code Enforcement: The Ministry can act against Programme Code violations under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, and an Inter-Departmental Committee examines content, according to its advisory of 21 October 2026.
- IT Amendment Rules, 2026: Notified on 10 February 2026 and in force from 20 February 2026, they define synthetic content, require labels and set a three-hour takedown after flagging by the Government or a court.
- India AI Governance Guidelines, 2025: Released by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology on 5 November 2025, they set seven "sutras" and propose an AI Governance Group, a Technology and Policy Expert Committee and an AI Safety Institute.
- Future Legislation: Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said in June 2026 that a new legal framework may be needed because the IT Act predates generative AI, with no timeline given.
- European Union: The AI Act's transparency rules apply from August 2026, requiring AI-generated content to be identifiable and deepfakes to be clearly labelled, according to the European Commission.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting says it wants private channels to treat AI as an assistive tool and to follow the Programme Code, with stronger editorial review and regular training. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology regulates synthetic content on intermediaries through the IT Rules, 2021 as amended in 2026. No dedicated AI law has been announced.
Director's Perspective
Way Forward
- Convert the advisory into a short, published guideline that defines "assistive use" and lists disclosure steps, so channels know what compliance means.
- Require channels to disclose on screen when AI-generated visuals or voices are used in news, which aligns TV practice with the 2026 labelling rules for platforms.
- Give the Inter-Departmental Committee published procedures and time limits, and allow an independent appeal, so that review is predictable.
- Run joint training with self-regulatory bodies, using real examples of AI errors, so that newsroom checks improve before enforcement is needed.
The advisory is a reasonable, light-touch first step, but it will work only if it becomes clear enough to follow. Its strengths are a preventive tone and a focus on accuracy and training, while its weak points are vague terms and the absence of a binding standard. In a Mains answer, credit the balance with Article 19(2), then conclude that published, specific norms on AI disclosure will protect viewers better than broad cautions.
GS Relevance
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the I&B Ministry advise private TV channels about AI on 21 October 2026?
The Information and Broadcasting Ministry advised private satellite TV channels to use AI tools only as an assistive aid, protect accuracy and authenticity, follow the Programme Code, strengthen editorial review, and train staff regularly. It also asked for crime and violence reports based on verified facts.
Under which law can the Government act against TV Programme Code violations?
The Ministry can act against violations of the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The Programme Code itself is prescribed under the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, and an Inter-Departmental Committee examines content, according to the Ministry's 21 October 2026 advisory.
How are AI-generated deepfakes regulated on social media in India?
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026 came into force on 20 February 2026. They define synthetic content, require clear labels, bar removal of labels and set a three-hour takedown after Government or court flagging.
PYQ Practice — Statement Analysis
1 Article 19(2) allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on free speech on listed grounds such as public order and defamation.
The grounds are listed in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
2 The Programme Code for TV channels is prescribed under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
It is prescribed under the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994.
3 In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act.
The provision was held unconstitutional as overly broad.