New Delhi: The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) officially published long-pending accessibility rules for streaming platforms on 6 February, days after a contempt petition was filed in the Delhi High Court against the ministry’s secretary for failing to meet a court-sanctioned deadline.
The ‘Guidelines for Accessibility of Content on platforms of publishers of Online Curated Content (OTT Platforms)’ mandate that OTT providers offer specific features—such as audio description, closed captioning, and Indian Sign Language—to ensure that entertainment content is accessible to people with hearing and visual impairments.
The guidelines were adopted about eight years after the ministry constituted a committee of experts and stakeholders to formulate accessibility standards on 27 September 2017.
The basis for contempt
The legal pressure culminating in these rules began with a writ petition filed by disability rights activists and lawyers Rahul Bajaj and Akshat Baldwa in 2024. They argued that the ministry was failing its statutory duty under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, or RPwD Act, to ensure that all media content is in an accessible format.
According to the RPwD Act, the government shall take measures to ensure that people with disabilities have access to electronic media through audio description, sign language interpretation and closed captioning.
In September 2025, upon learning that the ministry had yet to publish the guidelines, the high court asked for a status report in a month and noted that if the relevant guidelines were not formulated, the concerned secretary would join the proceedings virtually on the next date of hearing.
On 16 October 2025, the court recorded an undertaking from the ministry’s counsel that the final guidelines would be issued within three months after the ministry said it had already formulated draft guidelines.
Based on this “categorical and unconditional” undertaking, the court disposed of the writ petition, expecting the rules to be finalised by 14 January 2026.
A “wilful and deliberate” breach
When the three-month deadline passed on 14 January without the guidelines being notified, the petitioner issued a notice to the ministry on 17 January bringing to their notice that a contempt petition would be initiated if there was failure to comply.
Despite being given an additional week to comply by the petitioners, the ministry did not respond, leading Bajaj to file a formal civil contempt petition on 30 January.
The petition alleged a “wilful and deliberate disobedience” of the court’s October order, noting that the guidelines continued to remain in draft form without any legal effect.
The matter was set for an urgent hearing on 9 February, creating the legal catalyst for the ministry’s eventual publication of the rules on 6 February.
The new OTT accessibility rules
The final guidelines aim to provide an “enabling framework” that allows people with disabilities to what they describe as “independently perceive, navigate, and interact” with OTT services. The larger objective is to ensure that people with disabilities have access to recreational content.
The rules establish several key access services, including auditory narration of visual representations—such as scenes, actions and costumes—during gaps in dialogue for visually impaired users.
Moreover, they say that closed captioning should be provided, which consists of on-screen text synchronised with audio, including dialogue, speaker identification, and non-speech sounds, such as a doorbell ringing.
For hearing-impaired users, the guidelines say that Indian Sign Language interpretation must be provided in a picture-in-picture mode and in a manner that the viewer can see not only the hands but also the facial expressions of the interpreter.
Platforms must ensure their websites and mobile apps are compatible with assistive technologies.
According to the rules, publishers of online curated content should provide at least one accessibility feature for hearing-impaired and visually-impaired users—closed or open captioning, Indian Sign Language interpretation or audio descriptors (AD) in their content libraries.
The publishers of online curated content shall submit a status report on accessibility compliance of newly published content on their platforms.
The first report shall be furnished 36 months from the date of publication of these guidelines, and thereafter, quarterly progress reports shall be furnished.
Live and deferred live content, audio content such as music and podcasts, and short-form content, including advertisements, are exempt from these accessibility requirements because of technical and operational challenges.
Compliance hurdle
Compliance with these rules remains a point of contention. Under the rules, the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting shall establish a Monitoring Committee under the chairmanship of an officer not below the rank of joint secretary to monitor the implementation of these guidelines and redress grievances pertaining to accessibility of content on OTT platforms.
The committee shall meet every quarter and communicate its decisions to the concerned entities for implementation.
The ministry has also granted OTT platforms a phased transition period.
Publishers must ensure that all newly published content carries at least one accessibility feature for both hearing-impaired and visually-impaired viewers within 36 months (three years) from the date of publication.
They should ensure that content descriptors are prominently displayed at the time of release to indicate which accessibility features are available.
Platforms must also submit quarterly “Accessibility Conformance Reports” to monitor progress.
To address future failures in compliance, a three-tier grievance redressal structure has been established, beginning with self-regulation by the publisher to a final monitoring committee overseen by the Central government.
But the disability community sees these guidelines as a huge setback, as the prescribed implementation timeline has been extended from six months earlier to 36 months.
Even after 36 months, they say, the guidelines do not mandate immediate accessibility but provide for implementation in a “phased manner” with no clarity on the final deadline.
The ministry was told to make existing content accessible in a progressive manner within 24 months. However, this was not a mandate and compliance was on a “best-effort basis” without setting any milestone timeline for implementation.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)