#FactCheck - Viral Video Misrepresented as Reaction to Pakistan’s Defeat in T20 World Cup

Introduction

In the digital entertainment world, OTT platforms have become highly popular and have attracted larger audiences. They offer a wide variety of entertaining content. However, there are certain concerns about depicting illicit or objectionable content on such platforms. The Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) has been working on tackling issues like the availability of obscene content on online streaming platforms and other platforms. I&B Ministry has taken important steps to prevent the spread of such illicit or objectionable content.

The I&B Ministry has taken action against obscene and vulgar content on OTT platforms. A total 18 OTT platforms and several associated websites, apps, and social media handles have been blocked nationwide. The government has been in consistent talks with these platforms and issued several advisories, but they have not been adhered to. The decision was made after consultation with other ministries, domain experts, and industry bodies. The content allegedly obscene was found to depict nudity, sexual intercourse, and inappropriate sexual acts within societal contexts. The government states that it is the responsibility of platforms to ensure that content is not present in a vulgar fashion. Creativities do not necessarily mean promoting or propagating vulgar and sexual content.

Key Highlights of I&B Ministry Action against Obscene Content

On 14th March 2024, The Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) announced the blocking of 18 OTT platforms, 19 Websites, 10 apps, and 57 social media handles for displaying obscene and vulgar content. Union Minister for Information & Broadcasting Shri Anurag Singh Thakur has announced the removal of 18 OTT platforms that published obscene and vulgar content, underscoring the responsibility of platforms to prevent the spread of such content. The decision was made under the Information Technology Act 2000 and in consultation with other Indian ministries and domain experts in media, entertainment, women's rights, and child rights.

List of Blocked OTT Platforms

OTT platforms that have been blocked are Dreams Films, Voovi, Yessma, Uncut Adda, Tri Flicks, X Prime, Neon X VIP, Besharams, Hunters, Rabbit, Xtramood, Nuefliks, MoodX, Mojflix, Hot Shots VIP, Fugi, Chikooflix, Prime Play.

It was highlighted that these OTT platforms, despite not being widely popular, have a significant viewership. One app has over 1 crore downloads, while two others have more than 50 lakh downloads on Google Play Store. These platforms also market their content through social media, with a combined followership of over 32 lakh.

Nature of content

The ministry reported that a significant portion of the content on social media platforms was obscene, vulgar, and demeaning, depicting nudity and sexual acts in inappropriate contexts like teacher-student relationships and incestuous family relationships. The content included sexual innuendos and prolonged pornographic scenes without any thematic or societal relevance. It was further stated that the content was found to be prima facie in violation of Section 67 and 67A of the Information & Technology Act, 2000, Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code and  Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.

Way Forward

The press release by the ministry stated that “The Government of India remains committed to fostering the growth and development of the OTT industry. Several measures have been undertaken in this regard, including the introduction of the Inaugural OTT Award for Web Series at the 54th International Film Festival of India, collaboration with OTT platforms in the media and entertainment sector, and the establishment of a light touch regulatory framework with an emphasis on self-regulation under the IT Rules, 2021.”

This shows that the Indian government is dedicated to promoting the growth of the OTT industry but within certain checks or oversight mechanisms to prevent illicit or objectionable content on such platforms.

OTT Content and Regulatory Checks

Online content streaming on OTT platforms lacks regulatory checks, unlike films, which are reviewed and certified by a government-appointed board. The government has instructed streaming services to independently review content for obscenity and violence before it is made available online. There have been repeated instances where criticism has been raised about the illicit or violative depicted content in some OTT shows. This highlights the issue of checks and balances. The government has urged self-regulation on platforms, but the repeated instances of illicit content raise societal concerns. The Ministry of I&B is keen towards promoting ethical & moral standards of content that is being hosted on online OTT platforms.

Conclusion

The Ministry of I&B has taken a step and announced the shutdown of 18 OTT platforms that were engaged in depicting illicit content. This shows that the I&B Ministry is committed to promoting ethical online content. While legislative measures are required to prevent the spread of such illicit or violative content, joint efforts by the government, industry players, and civil society are critical to ensuring a secure and responsible digital environment for all users.

References

• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2014477
• https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/centre-bans-ott-platforms-websites-and-apps-over-obscene-and-vulgar-content/article67949819.ece
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/ib-ministry-blocks-18-ott-platforms-for-vulgar-content/articleshow/108485880.cms?from=mdr
• https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/information-and-broadcasting-ministry-blocks-18-ott-platforms-for-obscene-and-vulgar-content-9213749/
• https://www.storyboard18.com/ott-news/mib-blocks-18-ott-platforms-for-showing-obscene-and-vulgar-content-26400.htm

‍

India’s Rapid Digital Expansion

‍
‍

‍

Over the past decade, India has experienced a rapid digitalisation process. The rise of digital financial services,  affordable internet costs, and the penetration of smartphones have transformed the way people communicate, transact and do business online.

Online payment systems, including Unified Payments Interface (UPI), have enabled real-time transactions between banks and financial systems. As much as these systems have enhanced access to finance and efficiency, they have also created new opportunities for cybercriminals.

Cybercrime has evolved alongside the shift of financial and social interactions to digital platforms. The fraud attacks on online payments, online banking, and personal information have become common and increasingly costly.

To analyse the scale and trend of cybercrime in India, this analysis will use the datasets released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and financial fraud data released by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
‍

The Rise of Cybercrime in India
‍

‍

The Rise of Cybercrime in India
‍

Source: National Crime Records Bureau – Crime in India Reports

The data released by the NCRB documents cybercrime incidents registered by the police at the national level under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and criminal provisions covering offences such as cheating, impersonation, and digital fraud. In the past, the offences were listed in the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following criminal law reforms in India, on 1 July 2024, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the IPC, came into force. Section 419 (cheating by impersonation), IPC, would be related to BNS Section 319 and Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), which would be related to BNS Section 318(4). Similarly, crimes involving forgery and use of forged documents or electronic documents, which were previously contained in the IPC Sections 465-471, are dealt with in BNS Sections 335-340.

The data published by the NCRB represent the number of crimes that reached the point of the First Information Report (FIR) registration, meaning they reflect only cybercrime cases that were formally presented to the law enforcement system to investigate, rather than all complaints reported. The data shows that cybercrime cases increased from 27,248 in 2018 to 86,420 in 2023, a 3.17-fold increase in 5 years.

Two structural shifts are visible: the post-pandemic jump and subsequent acceleration.

However, these figures likely underestimate the true scale of cybercrime because many incidents are reported only through online complaint portals and may not result in FIR registration.
‍

The Financial Scale of Digital Fraud

‍

‍

The Financial Scale of Digital Fraud

‍

Source: Ministry of Home Affairs via,  Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), and National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP)

This dataset tracks financial fraud complaints reported through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP) and the estimated financial losses associated with those complaints.

The financial losses reported between 2021 and 2024 increased by 41 times over four years, compared to 2021, from 551 crore to 22,848 crore. At the same time, the number of complaints rose from 262,846 to over 1.9 million, an increase of ~623%, indicating both rising victimisation and greater public awareness of reporting mechanisms.

The contrast between these two trends is striking:
‍

While complaints increased by around 7 times, financial losses increased by over 40 times. 

‍

‍

Distribution of Cyber-Fraud Complaints and Financial Losses by Fraud Type
‍

Source: Ministry of Home Affairs via Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre and National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal; analysis based on reporting in Business Standard using government cyber-fraud data.
‍

This divergence implies an uneven relationship between the number of incidents and the financial damage that they inflict. Most cyber fraud incidents involve relatively small transaction values; however, a smaller group of fraud categories result in disproportionate numbers of financial losses.
‍

‍

Distribution of Financial Losses Across Major Cyber-Fraud Categories in India

‍

Source: Ministry of Home Affairs via,  Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), and National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP) figures reported by The Indian Express
‍

As reported by The Indian Express, based on the data compiled by the I4C, investment-related scams alone account for roughly 77% of reported cyber-fraud losses, followed by smaller shares from “digital arrest” scams (8%), credit card fraud (7%), sextortion (4%), e-commerce fraud (3%), and malware or app-based fraud (1%). This distribution means that even though scams with lower values, like phishing, OTP fraud, and small payment fraud, produce a high proportion of complaints, few categories of fraud produce most of the financial losses.

‍

Analysis

‍

1. Cybercrime is expanding faster than most traditional crimes: The fact that cybercrime cases have tripled in five years shows that cyber offences are presently becoming a significant element of Indian crime. Unlike conventional crimes that require physical proximity, cybercrime can be conducted remotely and at scale, enabling perpetrators to target large numbers of victims simultaneously.

2. Financial losses are concentrated in a small set of fraud categories: As cases of cybercrimes have been on the increase, the monetary losses of digital fraud cases have been increasing at a higher rate. The fact that the number of reported financial losses has increased 40 times in 4 years indicates that cybercrime has a very high economic impact.

3. Complaint volumes and financial damage follow different patterns: When comparing complaints and financial losses, it is evident that cyber fraud losses are unevenly distributed across types of incidents. Most of the prevalent scams reported, including phishing or OTP fraud, involve relatively small transaction values but yield a high portion of complaints. Conversely, fewer categories of fraud, especially investment-based schemes, contribute a significantly higher percentage of total financial losses.

4. Digital financial infrastructure has expanded the attack surface: India’s rapid adoption of digital payment systems, mobile banking and digital  financial systems has dramatically increased the number of potential victims of cybercriminals. The scale of online transactions creates new vulnerabilities that organised cybercrime networks take advantage of.

5. Reporting improvements reveal previously hidden crime: The expansion of national reporting systems has enhanced the transparency in the trends of cybercrime. The increase in the number of complaints recorded is partially due to improved reporting systems and not necessarily to the increased criminal activity, meaning that previous data might have understated the magnitude of cyber fraud.

Recommendations
‍

1. Move from reactive policing to proactive cyber-risk monitoring: The conventional models of policing focus on investigation of crimes that have already taken place. With such a magnitude and pace of cyber fraud, India should have systems that are designed to detect and prevent the fraud at its early stages, such as real-time observation of suspicious patterns in transactions by financial institutions.

2. Strengthen financial intelligence sharing across institutions: There are a lot of instances of cyber fraud that use more than one bank, payment system, and telecommunication provider. To detect new networks of fraud sooner, it can be suggested to establish more information-sharing measures between the financial institution and law enforcement agencies.

3. Target organised cyber fraud networks rather than individual incidents: Many digital scams operate through organised networks that coordinate phishing, mule accounts, and fake payment channels. The solution in regard to this involves dismantling these networks through investigative procedures instead of treating incidents on a case-by-case basis.

4. Improve recovery mechanisms for stolen funds: The recovery of the funds lost is one of the most difficult issues in cases of cyber fraud. Expanding systems such as the Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System (CFCFRMS) can improve the speed at which fraudulent transactions are frozen or reversed.

5. Strengthen digital financial literacy: A significant percentage of cyber frauds are based on social engineering methods that take advantage of user behaviour as opposed to technical weaknesses. Victimisation can be greatly reduced through specific public awareness efforts on typical scam schemes.

Conclusion
‍

India’s experience illustrates a broader global trend: as economies digitise, crime increasingly follows the flow of digital money. While cybercrime incidents are rising steadily, the much faster growth in financial losses suggests that cybercriminals are becoming more organised, technologically sophisticated, and economically motivated.

‍

References:
‍

• https://indianexpress.com/article/india/indians-lost-rs-53000-crore-fraud-cheating-cases-six-years-maharashtra-2025-10452185/ 
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2226441&reg=3&lang=2 -
• https://www.ncrb.gov.in/crime-in-india.html 
• https://i4c.mha.gov.in/index.aspx 
• https://i4c.mha.gov.in/index.aspx 

‍

Modern international trade heavily relies on data transfers for the exchange of digital goods and services. User data travels across multiple jurisdictions and legal regimes, each with different rules for processing it. Since international treaties and standards for data protection are inadequate, states, in an effort to protect their citizens' data, have begun extending their domestic privacy laws beyond their borders. However, this opens a Pandora's box of legal and administrative complexities for both, the data protection authorities and data processors. The former must balance the harmonization of domestic data protection laws with their extraterritorial enforcement, without overreaching into the sovereignty of other states. The latter must comply with the data privacy laws in all states where it collects, stores, and processes data. While the international legal community continues to grapple with these challenges, India can draw valuable lessons to refine the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP) in a way that effectively addresses these complexities.

Why Extraterritorial Application? 

Since data moves freely across borders and entities collecting such data from users in multiple states can misuse it or use it to gain an unfair competitive advantage in local markets, data privacy laws carry a clause on their extraterritorial application. Thus, this principle is utilized by states to frame laws that can ensure comprehensive data protection for their citizens, irrespective of the data’s location.  The foremost example of this is the European Union’s (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), 2016,  which applies to any entity that processes the personal data of its citizens, regardless of its location. Recently, India has enacted the DPDP Act of 2023, which includes a clause on extraterritorial application.

The Extraterritorial Approach: GDPR and DPDP Act

The GDPR is considered the toughest data privacy law in the world and sets a global standard in data protection. According to Article 3, its provisions apply not only to data processors within the EU but also to those established outside its territory, if they offer goods and services to and conduct behavioural monitoring of data subjects within the EU. The enforcement of this regulation relies on heavy penalties for non-compliance in the form of fines up to €20 million or 4% of the company’s global turnover, whichever is higher, in case of severe violations. As a result, corporations based in the USA, like Meta and Clearview AI, have been fined over  €1.5 billion and €5.5 million respectively, under the GDPR. 

Like the GDPR, the DPDP Act extends its jurisdiction to foreign companies dealing with personal data of data principles within Indian territory under section 3(b). It has a similar extraterritorial reach and prescribes a penalty of up to Rs 250 crores in case of breaches. However, the Act or DPDP Rules, 2025, which are currently under deliberation, do not elaborate on an enforcement mechanism through which foreign companies can be held accountable. 

Lessons for India’s DPDP on Managing Extraterritorial Application 

1. Clarity in Definitions: GDPR clearly defines ‘personal data’, covering direct information such as name and identification number,  indirect identifiers like location data, and, online identifiers that can be used to identify the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural, or social identity of a natural person. It also prohibits revealing special categories of personal data like religious beliefs and biometric data to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of the subjects. On the other hand, the DPDP Act/ Rules define ‘personal data’ vaguely, leaving a broad scope for Big Tech and ad-tech firms to bypass obligations. 
2. International Cooperation: Compliance is complex for companies due to varying data protection laws in different countries. The success of regulatory measures in such a scenario depends on international cooperation for governing cross-border data flows and enforcement. For DPDP to be effective, India will have to foster cooperation frameworks with other nations. 
3. Adequate Safeguards for Data Transfers: The GDPR regulates data transfers outside the EU via pre-approved legal mechanisms such as standard contractual clauses or binding corporate rules to ensure that the same level of protection applies to EU citizens’ data even when it is processed outside the EU. The DPDP should adopt similar safeguards to ensure that Indian citizens’ data is protected when processed abroad.
4. Revised Penalty Structure: The GDPR mandates a penalty structure that must be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. The supervisory authority in each member state has the power to impose administrative fines as per these principles, up to an upper limit set by the GDPR. On the other hand, the DPDP’s penalty structure is simplistic and will disproportionately impact smaller businesses. It must take into regard factors such as nature, gravity, and duration of the infringement, its consequences, compliance measures taken, etc.
5. Governance Structure: The GDPR envisages a multi-tiered governance structure comprising of   

• National-level Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) for enforcing national data protection laws and the GDPR, 
• European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) for monitoring the processing of personal data by EU institutions and bodies,  
• European Commission (EC) for developing GDPR legislation
• European Data Protection Board (EDPB) for enabling coordination between the EC, EDPS, and DPAs

In contrast, the Data Protection Board (DPB) under DPDP will be a single, centralized body overseeing compliance and enforcement. Since its members are to be appointed by the Central Government, it raises questions about the Board’s autonomy and ability to apply regulations consistently. Further, its investigative and enforcement capabilities are not well defined.

Conclusion 

The protection of the human right to privacy ( under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) in today’s increasingly interconnected digital economy warrants international standard-setting on cross-border data protection. In the meantime, States relying on the extraterritorial application of domestic laws is unavoidable. While India’s DPDP takes measures towards this, they must be refined to ensure clarity regarding implementation mechanisms. They should push for alignment with data protection laws of other States, and account for the complexity of enforcement in cases involving extraterritorial jurisdiction. As India sets out to position itself as a global digital leader, a well-crafted extraterritorial framework under the DPDP Act will be essential to promote international trust in India’s data governance regime.

Sources

• https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/ 
• https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-150/ 
• https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-51/ 
• https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2024/06/2bf1f0e9f04e6fb4f8fef35e82c42aa5.pdf 
• https://www.eqs.com/compliance-blog/biggest-gdpr-fines/#:~:text=ease%20the%20burden.-,At%20a%20glance,In%20summary 
• https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/ 
• https://www.legal500.com/developments/thought-leadership/gdpr-v-indias-dpdpa-key-differences-and-compliance-implications/#:~:text=Both%20laws%20cover%20'personal%20data,of%20personal%20data%20as%20sensitive. 

‍