Mains answer practice — GS 2: Questions on regulation of content on OTT platforms and ceasefire (Week 102)
UPSC Essentials brings to you its initiative for the practice of Mains answer writing. It covers essential topics of static and dynamic parts of the UPSC Civil Services syllabus covered under various GS papers. This answer-writing practice is designed to help you as a value addition to your UPSC CSE Mains. Attempt today's answer writing on questions related to topics of GS-2 to check your progress.
🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for April 2025. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com🚨
The Supreme Court recently expressed worry about the regulation of content on OTT platforms, calling for legislative action to address obscene and immoral material. Discuss the issues of regulating OTT material in India, taking into account regulatory organisations' overlapping authorities and the need to balance free expression with societal sensitivities.
With reference to the India-Pakistan ceasefire, discuss the meaning of a ceasefire and what international law says about a 'breach' of ceasefire.
Introduction
— The introduction of the answer is essential and should be restricted to 3-5 lines. Remember, a one-liner is not a standard introduction.
— It may consist of basic information by giving some definitions from the trusted source and authentic facts.
Body
— It is the central part of the answer and one should understand the demand of the question to provide rich content.
— The answer must be preferably written as a mix of points and short paragraphs rather than using long paragraphs or just points.
— Using facts from authentic government sources makes your answer more comprehensive. Analysis is important based on the demand of the question, but do not over analyse.
— Underlining keywords gives you an edge over other candidates and enhances presentation of the answer.
— Using flowcharts/tree-diagram in the answers saves much time and boosts your score. However, it should be used logically and only where it is required.
Way forward/ conclusion
— The ending of the answer should be on a positive note and it should have a forward-looking approach. However, if you feel that an important problem must be highlighted, you may add it in your conclusion. Try not to repeat any point from body or introduction.
— You may use the findings of reports or surveys conducted at national and international levels, quotes etc. in your answers.
Self Evaluation
— It is the most important part of our Mains answer writing practice. UPSC Essentials will provide some guiding points or ideas as a thought process that will help you to evaluate your answers.
QUESTION 1: The Supreme Court recently expressed worry about the regulation of content on OTT platforms, calling for legislative action to address obscene and immoral material. Discuss the issues of regulating OTT material in India, taking into account regulatory organisations' overlapping authorities and the need to balance free expression with societal sensitivities.
Note: This is not a model answer. It only provides you with thought process which you may incorporate into the answers.
Introduction:
— The Supreme Court, while expressing concern about the regulation of content on Over the Top (OTT) platforms and social media, encouraged the government to do 'something legislative' about the obscene and indecent quality of content transmitted through such platforms.
— The Supreme Court's comments come in the aftermath of the recent 'India's Got Latent' incident, which generated discussion about the need to further connect OTT programming with laws and ethical requirements.
Body:
You may incorporate some of the following points in your answer:
— Most definitions of OTT refer to it as a media service that is offered over existing communication infrastructure, such as the internet, at the request of individual users. Because of the hybrid nature of OTT streaming, efforts to regulate the field have led in a turf war among the holy trifecta: the Ministry of Information Technology (MeiTY), the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).
— With the development of OTT content consumption after 2020, MeiTY issued the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, to govern intermediaries, OTT platforms, and digital news media organisations.
— The 2021 Rules established a Code of Ethics (Code) for such businesses, requiring them to meet particular due diligence duties, such as creating a three-tier regulatory structure. According to the Code, the first layer is self-regulation by the intermediary/publisher; the second tier is regulation by a self-regulating body of publishers; and the third tier is regulation by an interdepartmental committee to exercise oversight, hear and investigate concerns.
— Despite efforts to police offensive content on OTT platforms, the Code has been viewed as a set of guidelines with no consequences for noncompliance.
— The Code failed to account for the level of autonomy that OTT content providers had over their platform and content. This autonomy applies to both infrastructure and finance.
— To develop a comprehensive legal framework for all broadcast content, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting wanted to include OTT platforms and digital news channels in its Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023.
— Broadcasting requires control of both the end-to-end infrastructure and the content broadcast on it, whereas OTT streaming does not focus on the infrastructure (internet) over which it is distributed.
— Support for structured regulation of OTT platforms and content has grown, not just through judicial backing, but also through internationally accepted methods. Because of the nature of these platforms, there is a risk of spreading harmful content to the public.
Conclusion:
— The concepts of 'morality' and 'obscenity' are always developing. They vary depending on location, time, and the recipient's sensibility. The voices of people from marginalised communities or vulnerable groups should be acknowledged to ensure that critical depictions of societal practices or atrocities are not muted by excessive content regulation. Content-based guidelines must include a review clause that ensures that content control is reassessed on a regular and intentional basis in order to remain relevant to social reality.
— There is unquestionably a need to establish soft-touch regulatory frameworks to oversee the information delivered on OTT platforms. While extending censorship and film certification standards to OTT content may be impractical, age-based classification should be strictly enforced.
(Source: The 'who' and the 'how' of OTT content regulation)
Points to Ponder
Read more about regulations on OTT
Related Previous Year Questions
Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy. (2017)
QUESTION 2: With reference to the India-Pakistan ceasefire, discuss the meaning of a ceasefire and what international law says about a 'breach' of ceasefire.
Note: This is not a model answer. It only provides you with thought process which you may incorporate into the answers.
Introduction:
— According to Françoise Bouchet-Saulnier's book The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law, a ceasefire is an agreement between nations participating in a conflict that seeks to control the cessation of all military activity 'for a given length of time in a given area'.
— A cease-fire does not mean an end to hostilities. It denotes a ceasefire, or 'a temporary suspension of hostilities,' in both international and non-international armed confrontations. They also 'do not reflect a juridical end to the state of war,' according to the paper.
Body:
You may incorporate some of the following points in your answer:
— While there is no official definition of a ceasefire, Sydney D Bailey, an author and international affairs expert, as quoted in an Oxford encyclopaedia entry, defines it as 'suspension of acts of violence by military and paramilitary forces, usually resulting from the intervention of a third party.' Ceasefires can be formal or informal.
— Before the United Nations Charter was adopted in 1945, the phrases 'truce,' 'armistice,' and 'peace treaties' were used differently. However, the UN's flexible use of the phrase 'ceasefire', along with the collapse of pre-Charter conceptions, led to the usage of these terms interchangeably, according to the article in Oxford Public International Law.
— Ceasefire agreements, both in cases of international and non-international armed confrontations, include: timing of initiation, Identification and Definition of Prohibited Acts Physical separation of armed troops, including the establishment of ceasefire lines and/or buffer zones, Verification, supervision, and monitoring. Besides these significant phrases, it also contains 'repatriation of prisoners of war; return of missing — internally displaced persons and refugees; restitution and compensation of claims;' among other measures.
— A ceasefire, or a break of a ceasefire, has no legal implications because the agreements are viewed as a first step towards peace. During times of conflict, humanitarian law is primarily concerned with regulating the 'use of violence and the protection of civilians.'
— The remedies for a ceasefire violation are defined in the Regulations Respecting the Law and Customs of War on Land, generally known as the Hague Regulations, which were adopted in 1910.
— According to the encyclopaedia entry for the Oxford Public International Law, Article 36 of the Hague Regulations states that if an armistice or ceasefire does not specify its duration, 'the belligerent parties may resume operations at any time, provided that the enemy is warned within the time agreed upon.'
Conclusion:
— A major infringement of a ceasefire by one of the parties concerned allows the other the authority to condemn it and, in urgent instances, to resume hostilities immediately, according to the entry, which cited Article 40 of the Regulations.
— A violation of the ceasefire terms by 'private persons acting on their own initiative' allows the 'injured party to demand the punishment of the offenders or, if necessary, compensation for the losses sustained,' according to Article 41.
(Source: India-Pakistan ceasefire declaration: What exactly is a 'ceasefire')
Points to Ponder
Read more about ceasefire
Read more about Hague Regulations
Related Previous Year Questions
India has a long and troubled border with China and Pakistan fraught with contentious issues. Examine the conflicting issues and security challenges along the border. Also give out the development Programme (BADP) and Border Infrastructure and Management (BM) Scheme. (2024)
UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 3 (Week 102)
UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 3 (Week 101)
UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 2 (Week 100)
UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 2 (Week 101)
UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 1 (Week 100)
UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 1 (Week 101)
Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Democracy without dissent a contradiction: Justice Surya Kant
Democracy without dissent is a contradiction and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity, Supreme Court judge justice Surya Kant has asserted as he invoked India's constitutional ethos and the top court's role in defending civil liberties. Justice Kant, who is in line to take over as the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in November this year, was speaking at the Washington Supreme Court as part of an international judicial exchange. In his address earlier this week that underscored the shared constitutional commitments of India and the United States, the judge said: 'Democracy without dissent is a contradiction, and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity…These are not merely legal precedents; they are constitutional declarations.' Justice Kant highlighted that the right to free speech, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the First Amendment in the US, has been 'zealously defended' by courts on both sides of the Atlantic. Drawing parallels with the US Supreme Court's protection of student protest in Tinker Vs Des Moines (1969), he recalled how India's top court, much earlier, had established the primacy of expression in Romesh Thappar and Brij Bhushan cases in 1950, ruling against pre-censorship and vague notions of public order. 'In both countries, the judiciary has consistently pushed back against the temptation to suppress dissent under misguided and deceptive notions that the executive may hold,' he noted. Reaffirming the foundational nature of constitutional supremacy in both democracies, Justice Kant highlighted that the basic structure doctrine in India that asserts Parliament cannot amend away core constitutional values mirrors the American principle that 'even the majoritarian will must bow' before foundational ideals like liberty, federalism, and equality. 'These doctrines reflect a shared understanding that tampering with these principles would cause a rift so immense that it would threaten the very heart of our existence,' he warned. ALSO READ | Free speech, democracy, and the epidemic of hurt feelings Justice Kant also spotlighted India's global leadership in using public interest litigation (PIL) as a judicial tool to redress collective harm. Citing the Vishaka judgment (1997) where the Indian Supreme Court laid down workplace sexual harassment guidelines in the absence of legislation, he said: 'Though structurally distinct, both approaches reflect a shared judicial philosophy: that justice must not be confined to individual litigants but must be responsive to collective harm and systemic failure.' In contrast, he acknowledged the role of class action lawsuits in the US, such as Lois Jenson Vs Eveleth Taconite Co (1993), where female workers collectively challenged workplace abuse. Addressing the evolution of due process jurisprudence, Justice Kant recalled how the Indian Constitution initially adopted 'procedure established by law' over the American-style 'due process,' but eventually evolved the latter through judicial interpretation. 'In the seminal Maneka Gandhi case (1978), the Indian Supreme Court read into the phrase the requirements of justice, fairness, and reasonableness -- effectively harmonizing our doctrine with the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,' he added. Justice Kant concluded his address on a note of judicial kinship, stating: 'It is my firm belief that our countries, and our legal systems, share a kindred spirit rooted in the pursuit of justice, liberty, and the rule of law… The law must be a shield for the weak, not a sword for the powerful.'
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Vishalgad Urs not held, yet 1,300 devotees went to fort for prayers at dargah
Kolhapur: Around 1,300 devotees visited Vishalgad to offer prayers at Hazrat Peer Malik Rehan's shrine on Sunday. The traditional four-day Urs, scheduled to begin on Sunday, was cancelled following restrictions by the state archaeology department. The Bakrid qurbani proceeded according to Bombay high court guidelines. While the Urs typically draws thousands of attendees, recent campaigns by right-wing organisations against encroachments have led to reduced attendance. The previous year's event was marred by violence over encroachment issues. The animal sacrifice ritual was conducted under strict protocols, requiring enclosed private premises. The area was surrounded by metal sheets to ensure compliance. Devotees from various regions queued early to climb to the fort, presenting identification such as Aadhaar cards for registration. The administration limited visits between 9am and 5pm, prohibiting overnight stays. All 1,300 registered visitors completed their darshan/prayers within the stipulated time. Sub-divisional officer Sameer Shingate, of the Pannala division, said: "Everyone left the fort before 5pm. Police bandobast and scrutiny will remain in place for three more days." Although the dargah trust officials proposed a modest Urs celebration, authorities implemented a complete prohibition. Kolhapur's superintendent of police Yogeshkumar Gupta said the administration has challenged the HC ruling permitting animal sacrifice at the fort in the Supreme Court. Right-wing groups opposed the HC decision, demanding the prohibition of both Urs and animal sacrifice at the historic 11th-century fort. These groups celebrated the administration's decision to ban the Urs as their success. Kolhapur: Around 1,300 devotees visited Vishalgad to offer prayers at Hazrat Peer Malik Rehan's shrine on Sunday. The traditional four-day Urs, scheduled to begin on Sunday, was cancelled following restrictions by the state archaeology department. The Bakrid qurbani proceeded according to Bombay high court guidelines. While the Urs typically draws thousands of attendees, recent campaigns by right-wing organisations against encroachments have led to reduced attendance. The previous year's event was marred by violence over encroachment issues. The animal sacrifice ritual was conducted under strict protocols, requiring enclosed private premises. The area was surrounded by metal sheets to ensure compliance. Devotees from various regions queued early to climb to the fort, presenting identification such as Aadhaar cards for registration. The administration limited visits between 9am and 5pm, prohibiting overnight stays. All 1,300 registered visitors completed their darshan/prayers within the stipulated time. Sub-divisional officer Sameer Shingate, of the Pannala division, said: "Everyone left the fort before 5pm. Police bandobast and scrutiny will remain in place for three more days." Although the dargah trust officials proposed a modest Urs celebration, authorities implemented a complete prohibition. Kolhapur's superintendent of police Yogeshkumar Gupta said the administration has challenged the HC ruling permitting animal sacrifice at the fort in the Supreme Court. Right-wing groups opposed the HC decision, demanding the prohibition of both Urs and animal sacrifice at the historic 11th-century fort. These groups celebrated the administration's decision to ban the Urs as their success.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
3 key judiciary appts a point of pride for Nagpur
It's a different kind of coincidence. Three leading legal luminaries from Nagpur are holding key posts in the judiciary in the national capital. Bhushan Gavai (64) is the Chief Justice of India , Atul Chandurkar (60) has been appointed as a judge in the Supreme Court, while Nitin Sambre (58) has been picked as a judge of Delhi high court. Gavai is probably the first judge of the apex court to publicly declare that he will not take up any post-retirement assignment. In the past, several CJIs had accepted key jobs after retirement; a few of them were nominated to Rajya Sabha or picked as governor or head of the human rights commission. CJI Gavai has taken the view that a judge contesting elections for political office immediately after retirement or resignation could lead to doubts about the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. CJI Gavai had given landmark verdicts in cases on demonetisation, electoral bonds scheme, demolitions by bulldozers, Article 379 abrogation, and extension of Enforcement Directorate chief's tenure. Justice Chandurkar belongs to Pune but shifted to Nagpur in 1992. Among the important orders he delivered include rulings against govt fact check units whose validity was challenged by standup comic Kunal Kamra and on the appointment of consumer forum members. The order in the Kamra case was widely appreciated for reaffirming the core principle of free speech. Justice Sambre was among the popular and powerful judges of Bombay HC's Nagpur bench. He took a firm stand on civic accountability and environmental issues. When Nagpur witnessed massive floods for two years, he took to task not only the state govt but even the Nagpur Municipal Corporation for their dismal preparedness and set a deadline for restoration of normalcy. Justice Sambre played a crucial role in tackling public interest litigations pertaining to urban governance. In the pink of health Public health secretary Nipun Vinayak has embarked on a new mission: to check the health of his staff as well as visitors. In addition, ever since he took over the reins of the health department, he has established dialogue with one and all in the entire department across the state. As one enters the 10th floor of the department, Vinayak has put up a huge board with employees' birth dates. It has created a sense of belonging. Above all, all those who come to meet Vinayak, they have to compulsorily fill up a simple questionnaire dealing with the life and health of the visitors. Vinayak is keen to know whether visitors have exercised in the morning on that day, have consumed tobacco or liquor, face stress, take care of their parents' health and, above all, how much time they give their children. These days, many people are not able to provide quality time to their children as well as their elderly parents. Vinayak said he expects the questionnaire will create awareness on individuals' health and family status.
