Media Laws

While the firm’s website offers minimal detail under this category, Advocate Khurana likely advises on:

Legal issues faced by print, broadcast, digital, and OTT media organizations
Issues related to freedom of expression, press regulation, and defamation
Representation in cases involving censorship disputes, content liability, government interventions
Handling media-related compliance, advisory on new bills/regulations, and representing journalists or institutions.

📜 Legal Framework Governing Media

Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
Article 19(2) permits restrictions for sovereignty, public order, decency, defamation, etc.

Established under the Press Council Act, 1978, the PCI promotes journalistic ethics, investigates complaints, and issues advisories—but lacks penal authority.
It also issues guidelines for misleading advertisements, requiring clear differentiation between editorial and paid content.

The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 still governs TV and cable content—dictating standards for decency, communal harmony, and licensing.
The Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023/2024 proposes creation of a Broadcasting Authority of India (BAI), a content evaluation committee, data localization mandates, and grievance mechanisms similar to a unified regulatory framework for broadcast and digital media.

The IT Rules 2021 (Intermediary Guidelines & Digital Media Ethics Code Rules) impose a three-tier self-regulatory structure for digital news and OTT platforms:
- Grievance officers at each level (publisher → self-regulator → government panel)
- Age-based content classification and mandatory content removal within 36 hours upon formal notice or court order
OTT content featuring tobacco must display health warnings, disclaimers, and anti-tobacco messaging per the 2023 amendment.
All digital ads must be accompanied by a Self-Declaration Certificate (SDC) from advertisers/agencies since mid-2024 to reduce misleading or false content.

Landmark cases include Shreya Singhal and MouthShut.com vs. Union of India (2015), where Section 66A of the IT Act was struck down and intermediary liability limited to court orders only.
Aveek Sarkar v. West Bengal (2024) replaced the obsolete Hicklin test and introduced the community‑standards approach to assess obscenity—thus reinforcing artistic and journalistic freedom.

Misinformation & Fake News Bill, 2025 (draft): Government is reworking the proposed legislation following public outcry over its potential to infringe on speech rights. It’s expected to be tabled in the upcoming Monsoon Session.
Freedom vs Offence—Supreme Court emphasized self-regulation, cautioning against over-censorship on social media while addressing divisive content.
The SC granted interim bail to cartoonist Hemant Malviya, booked for a social-media post about the Prime Minister; flagged the case as a key precedent on free expression limitations.
Allahabad HC held that merely expressing support for Pakistan on social media (without referencing India or sensitive content) doesn’t automatically invoke sedition laws under new BNS provisions—reinforcing permissible limits of speech.