Quick answer: The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting's 2 November 2026 advisory asks digital news publishers to verify AI-generated or materially altered images, video and audio, disclose synthetic material connected with real people or events, and avoid misleading use of older visuals. It also addresses OTT publishers and intermediaries on separate points. The advisory reiterates existing law and offers editorial guidance; it is not a new standalone statute.
The Ministry published the official advisory, No. DM/40/2026-DM, on its website on 3 November. It is addressed to three groups: publishers of online curated content (OTT platforms), publishers of news and current affairs online (digital news publishers), and intermediaries. Its specific directions should be read with those different audiences in mind.
What does the advisory say about AI-generated content?
For digital news publishers, the Ministry advises reasonable verification of AI-generated or materially altered photographs, videos and audio recordings. Where synthetic content is shown in connection with actual persons or events, publishers are advised to make an appropriate disclosure. They should also guard against presenting generated or altered material as authentic footage or a genuine statement.
The wording matters. This is a direction about editorial care and disclosure in news publishing, not a claim that all AI imagery is banned. Nor does the advisory set a universal label format, technical detection test or fixed verification procedure for every publisher. Its concern is whether a viewer may be misled about what is real.
Practical example: If a publisher uses an AI reconstruction of an actual incident, the visual should not be presented as camera footage of that incident. The example illustrates the advisory's approach; it is not an additional rule quoted from the Ministry.
What does it say about old footage and misleading visuals?
The Ministry notes that unrelated or older photographs and videos can circulate as though they show a recent event. It advises digital news publishers to take particular care with archival, illustrative and previously recorded material. As a best practice, the original date, location and context should accompany visuals. If the material comes from an outside source, including social media, the source should also be identified with the time stamp.
For crime reporting, the advisory says headlines, thumbnails and captions should not materially distort the event. It encourages verified facts, suitable blurring or masking where needed, and care with coverage involving women and children. For natural calamities, disasters and major accidents, it encourages date and time stamps where necessary so older footage does not cause confusion or panic.
A date stamp alone cannot establish that a video is genuine. Editors still need to check whether the image depicts the event it purports to show. That is an editorial inference from the advisory's emphasis on verification and context.
Which other subjects are covered?
| Subject | Main point in the advisory |
|---|---|
| Ongoing anti-terrorist operations | Digital news publishers are discouraged from live coverage that could reveal tactical positions, personnel movements or routes. The advisory favours lawful information from authorised briefings while an operation continues. |
| Disturbing visuals | OTT and digital news publishers are advised to use editorial discretion and consider blurring or masking where warranted. |
| Maps of India | OTT and digital news publishers are advised to use authentic maps published by the Survey of India. |
| Community-related coverage | Quotations, translations, allegations and visuals should be kept in context; applicable laws on incitement and promotion of enmity remain relevant. |
| Victims of sexual offences | Existing statutory protections and Supreme Court directions against direct or indirect identification must be respected. |
The last point extends beyond withholding a name. The advisory flags photographs, family details, locality and other particulars that may allow a person to identify a victim indirectly. Any exception must be one permitted by law or court order.
What does the advisory require of intermediaries?
The advisory separately tells intermediaries to comply with applicable due-diligence obligations under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Part II of the IT Rules, 2021, including Rules 3, 4 and 5 where applicable. It draws attention to provisions concerning synthetically generated information under Rules 3(3) and 4(1A), as applicable.
This is a reminder to identify the intermediary's actual statutory role and the provisions that apply to it. The publisher-focused editorial suggestions and intermediary due-diligence provisions are not interchangeable. The advisory itself does not reproduce the full text of those Rules or create a fresh, independent safe-harbour test.
Is this advisory a new law?
No. Its opening paragraphs reiterate adherence to the IT Act and Rules. Several points use advisory language such as advised, encouraged and best practice. Other points refer to duties already arising under existing statutes and court directions. A publisher should not treat every suggested practice as a newly enacted penal requirement, but should not ignore the underlying legal obligations either.
The Ministry also encourages OTT platforms and digital news publishers to improve editorial review and train staff involved in creating and publishing content. A useful internal checklist would ask: Where did a visual come from? When and where was it recorded? Was it altered or generated? Does its caption accurately state what it shows? Could publication identify a protected person? These questions translate the advisory into editorial review rather than adding legal rules.
Key takeaways
- The AI verification and synthetic-content disclosure point is addressed to digital news publishers.
- Old or illustrative visuals should carry enough date, place, context and source information to prevent misrepresentation.
- OTT and digital news publishers receive several additional content-related recommendations; intermediaries receive a separate reminder about applicable IT Act and Rules obligations.
- The advisory reiterates existing law and recommends editorial practices. Read its wording and addressee before treating a point as a legal duty.
Frequently asked questions
Does the advisory ban AI-generated news visuals?
No blanket ban appears in the document. It advises digital news publishers to verify AI-generated or materially altered media and make appropriate disclosures when synthetic material is connected with real people or events.
Must every old video carry a time stamp?
The advisory recommends original date, location and context as a best practice and encourages date and time stamps in several types of coverage. Its precise wording varies by subject; it does not state a single new universal penalty for an omitted time stamp.
Does the AI-content paragraph apply equally to OTT platforms and intermediaries?
That paragraph specifically addresses digital news publishers. The advisory has separate content guidance for OTT publishers and a separate due-diligence reminder for intermediaries.
Why are thumbnails mentioned?
A thumbnail can give viewers a false account of a crime or violent event even before they read the report. The Ministry advises that it should not materially misrepresent the event.
Can a publisher identify a sexual-offence victim without naming them?
Indirect details can also reveal identity. The advisory reminds publishers to follow the applicable statutory protections and Supreme Court directions, subject to lawful exceptions.
For a separate update on India's proposed framework for AI training data, read MeitY's DEPA for AI Training draft. The two documents concern different stages of AI use and should not be conflated.
Source: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting advisory dated 2 November 2026. The linked official PDF contains its complete wording.
