Obscenity and content moderation on OTT/social: current rulings, compliance checklists for creators and platforms

  • Post category:Blog
  • Reading time:7 mins read

Obscenity and content moderation on OTT/social: current rulings, compliance checklists for creators and platforms

Table of Contents

A guide to obscenity and content moderation on OTT and social platforms in India as of 2025—covering current rulings and regulatory posture, the IT Rules compliance framework, and step‑by‑step checklists creators and platforms should implement now. The playbook reflects recent enforcement actions against OTT platforms, Supreme Court signals on “offensive” online speech, and India’s three‑tier redressal regime.

The one‑minute takeaway

  • India’s IT Rules create a three‑tier system for OTT/digital publishers with 24‑hour acknowledgment and 15‑day resolution SLAs, age‑ratings, and escalation to self‑regulatory bodies and government oversight; significant social media intermediaries must also appoint compliance officers and act “expeditiously.”
  • Authorities have blocked multiple OTT platforms for obscene/vulgar content citing IT Act Sections 67/67A, BNS/IPC obscenity provisions, and the Indecent Representation of Women Act, indicating stricter scrutiny in 2025.
  • The Supreme Court has criticized obscene/offensive online speech, hinting at future guidelines balancing free speech and dignity; creators should expect tighter platform enforcement and faster takedowns.
  • IT Act and Rules: Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules, 2021 (as amended) govern intermediaries, significant social media intermediaries (SSMIs), and publishers of online curated content (OTT), prescribing due diligence, grievance workflows, and a Code of Ethics.
  • Obscenity statutes: Section 67 (obscene), 67A (sexually explicit) under IT Act; BNS/IPC obscenity provisions; Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act; these are invoked in blocking actions.
  • Three‑tier redressal: Level I (publisher grievance), Level II (self‑regulatory body), Level III (government oversight); independent bodies like the DPCGC have emerged under Level II.

Key due‑diligence baselines:

  • 24‑hour grievance acknowledgment; 15‑day disposal; expedited removal for specified categories; user notice of policy changes; 72‑hour information to law enforcement on requisition; data retention 180 days.

Current rulings and enforcement signals (2024–25)

  • Ministry blocking orders: More than 20 OTT apps/sites blocked for obscene or pornographic content under IT Act and IT Rules, referencing S.67/67A and indecent representation provisions—an escalation from the “self‑regulation first” posture.
  • Supreme Court observations: In prominent cases involving YouTubers and comedians, the Court questioned obscene and derogatory content, signaling that guidelines for satire/offensive content online may be framed; dignity and decency under Article 19(2) featured prominently.
  • Policy communiqués: Government press notes emphasize faster removal obligations and actions against online pornography; expect tighter scrutiny of “adult” content, especially where age‑gating fails.

What this means:

  • OTT publishers must treat obscenity and sexually explicit content as high‑risk requiring robust classification, age‑gating, and parental controls, and proactively avoid depictions that may fall foul of indecency laws.
  • Social platforms and creators face quicker takedowns and potential law‑enforcement referrals for “obscene/sexually explicit” speech; grievance escalations will get more attention.

OTT publishers: compliance checklist and SOPs

Governance and appointments

  • Appoint a Grievance Officer; publish contact details; acknowledge complaints within 24 hours and resolve within 15 days; maintain escalation logs to the self‑regulatory body and MIB.
  • Join/constitute a registered Level II self‑regulatory body (e.g., DPCGC or equivalent) headed by a retired judge/independent expert; document compliance decisions.

Content classification and controls

  • Implement age‑ratings per Schedule (U, UA7+, UA13+, UA16+, A) with descriptors (violence/nudity/sex/language) and robust parental controls; display classification at the start of each program.
  • Geo filters and device controls for “A” content; credible age‑gating (OTP/ID checks where feasible) to mitigate access by minors.

Editorial policy and review

  • Establish a standards manual aligning with the Code of Ethics; ban sexually explicit pornography; avoid indecent representation; ensure context‑based depiction of sex/nudity with narrative necessity.
  • Pre‑publish legal and sensitivity review for high‑risk content (sexual content, disability or minority portrayals, religious themes); record justifications and edits.

Notice‑and‑action

  • Intake channels: in‑app form, email, postal; auto‑acknowledge within 24h; triage “priority illegal” categories for expedited action; preserve evidence snapshots.
  • Decide within 15 days; communicate reasons to complainant; escalate unresolved to Level II; comply with any 69A or oversight directions.

Recordkeeping

  • Retain takedown logs, correspondence, and content versions for at least 180 days; store age‑rating decisions and reviewer notes.

Social platforms and SSMIs: due‑diligence essentials

Officer and process

  • Appoint Chief Compliance Officer, Nodal Contact Person, and Grievance Officer in India; publish terms; inform users periodically; enable redressal and appeals (GAC).
  • Act expeditiously on “obscene/sexually explicit” content; document decisions and rationale; provide data to agencies within 72 hours when lawfully requested.

Moderation playbook

  • Machine queues for sexual imagery and slurs; human review for context (artistic, educational vs pornographic).
  • Age‑restrict vs remove: for borderline “adult” but non‑pornographic content, consider age gating; for explicit sexual content or exploitation, remove and report.
  • Creator notice and appeal: explain policy basis, enable appeal to Grievance Officer; record outcomes and timing to meet GAC oversight.

Creators and agencies: what to implement now

Content design

  • Avoid explicit sexual content and indecent depictions; if adult themes are essential (film/series), ensure OTT‑compliant age‑rating and content warnings; avoid click‑bait obscene thumbnails/captions.
  • Treat satire/roasts as high‑risk—steer clear of sexualized insults and derogatory content toward protected groups; recent Supreme Court remarks show low tolerance.

Workflow and evidence

  • Pre‑publish checklist: obscenity/sexually explicit flags; context justification; age‑rating; captions and hashtags; approvals recorded.
  • Respond quickly to platform notices; use grievance mechanisms with clear context defenses; revise assets to comply (crop, blur, re‑caption) where needed.

Brand collaborations

  • Contract clauses requiring creators to comply with platform/community guidelines and IT Rules; include indemnity for “obscene/sexually explicit” violations and a takedown SLA.

Step‑by‑step SOPs

OTT complaint handling (Level I)

  1. Receive complaint → auto‑acknowledge within 24 hours; assign priority.
  2. Review content against Code of Ethics; consult legal if sexual content/obscenity implicated; document findings.
  3. Decide removal, age‑restriction, edit, or reject; communicate reasons; resolve within 15 days.
  4. If escalated, submit dossier to Level II SRO; implement directions.

SSMI moderation (obscenity queue)

  1. Hash‑match/ML flag → human reviewer validates; check context (artistic, news).
  2. If explicit/obscene: remove, notify user; if borderline: age‑restrict/blur; log.
  3. On user appeal → Grievance Officer review; decide within 15 days; enable GAC appeal.

Creator edit flow (on notice)

  1. Read policy reason; identify violating elements (visuals/words).
  2. Edit: bleep/blur/trim; add context card if educational/artistic; adjust thumbnail/title.
  3. Re‑upload; reply to ticket with changes; maintain proof of edits for future audits.

Sample policy language and notices

Community standard (obscenity)
“We prohibit content that depicts sex acts, explicit nudity, or sexually explicit descriptions intended to arouse. We restrict age access to mature discussions of sexuality in educational or artistic contexts with appropriate warnings and labels.”

User notice (removal)
“Your post was removed for violating our Obscenity & Sexual Content policy. Examples of prohibited content include explicit depictions and pornographic material. You may appeal within 15 days.”

OTT description card
“This program is rated A for mature audiences. It contains sexual themes and strong language presented for narrative context. Viewer discretion advised.”

Risk indicators and mitigation

High‑risk indicators

  • Explicit sex depiction; fetish content; indecent portrayal of women; sexualized insults; content involving minors or perceived minors.

Mitigation

  • Narrative necessity memo; age‑rating with parental controls; sensitivity review; legal pre‑clear for controversial episodes; geo‑restriction where mandated.

Timelines and escalation map

  • Acknowledge within 24 hours; resolve within 15 days (Level I).
  • Provide requested information to law enforcement within 72 hours.
  • Appeals via SRO and GAC per platform category; implement directions promptly.

Common blunders

  • Relying on “self‑regulation” without Level II engagement; missing 24h/15d SLAs; weak age‑gating for “A” content.
  • Treating satire as a shield for obscene/derogatory remarks; current judicial mood disfavors such defenses.
  • Ignoring the Indecent Representation Act while focusing only on IT Rules.
  • Not documenting decisions; weak logs undermine defenses during audits.

Action plan for Q4 2025

  • OTTs: Re‑audit catalog ratings and descriptors; strengthen parental controls; train editors on indecency tests; align with SRO.
  • Platforms: Refresh community standards and reviewer playbooks; implement age‑restriction tooling; tighten grievance and GAC ops.
  • Creators/agencies: Build pre‑publish moderation checklists; avoid sexualized insults and explicit visuals; prepare appeals with context notes.

A disciplined combination of Code‑of‑Ethics alignment, fast grievance handling, robust age‑gating, and documented editorial necessity is the safest way to create and distribute edgy content without crossing into “obscenity” in India’s 2025 enforcement climate.

Tags: , , , , ,