TRP Policy 2026 signals MIB’s clear push to edge TRAI out of broadcasting sector

The Centre’s Television Ratings Policy, 2026 is being widely seen as a decisive step towards reshaping India’s broadcasting regulatory framework, one that aligns with the government’s broader intent to gradually move the sector away from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and consolidate oversight within the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB).

The development follows earlier indications that the government is exploring a single-regulator framework for broadcasting. The latest TRP policy appears to advance that vision, but industry experts and legal observers suggest the move may be less disruptive than it appears particularly from a broadcaster’s perspective. Broadcasters have called the TRP policy chaotic and over engineered. 

MIB’s primacy always existed

While the new policy formally removes TRAI from the television ratings ecosystem, stakeholders point out that the MIB has historically been the nodal authority in both letter and practice.

Under the 2014 guidelines governing television audience measurement, TRAI’s role was largely recommendatory. It provided inputs, consultation papers, and policy suggestions, but the ultimate authority for approvals, implementation, and enforcement rested with the MIB. 

In that sense, the 2026 policy is being viewed as a formalization of an existing structure rather than a fundamental shift. By explicitly vesting all powers—ranging from registration and audits to compliance and enforcement—within the Ministry, the government has eliminated regulatory overlap and clarified lines of authority.

For broadcasters, this clarity addresses a long-standing concern around dual oversight, where overlapping jurisdictions sometimes led to delays and inconsistent interpretations.

Streamlining regulation for broadcasters

Rahul Mehta, Partner at King Stubb & Kasiva, described the policy as a “clear shift” in regulatory design, particularly in how oversight is structured. While the removal of an independent regulator may raise theoretical concerns, the consolidation is also expected to simplify compliance for industry players.

Television ratings remain central to the broadcasting ecosystem, directly influencing advertising revenue, channel positioning, and media planning strategies. A single-window regulatory structure could enable faster decision-making and reduce bureaucratic friction—an outcome broadcasters have consistently advocated.

Backing the move, a senior executive at a leading broadcast network said, “For years, the industry has dealt with overlapping jurisdictions between TRAI and MIB, often leading to delays in decision-making. A single regulatory framework brings much-needed clarity and speed, which is critical in a fast-moving advertising market.”

Another top broadcaster echoed the sentiment, noting, “Broadcasting is fundamentally different from telecom, and regulating it under a telecom framework created unnecessary complexity. Moving oversight fully to the MIB aligns regulation with sector realities and will help improve ease of doing business.”

Abha Shah, Partner at IndiaLaw LLP, noted that while TRAI’s involvement under the earlier framework contributed to credibility, the new policy centralizes responsibility in a more direct manner. This, in turn, places the onus on the MIB to ensure transparency and fairness, making accountability more clearly defined.

Industry executives argue that such a model, if implemented with adequate safeguards, could enhance efficiency without necessarily compromising trust.

Part of a broader regulatory reset

The TRP policy is also being interpreted as a precursor to a wider structural overhaul. By creating a self-contained regulatory architecture that excludes TRAI, the government appears to be aligning policy execution with its larger vision of a unified broadcasting regulator under the MIB.

This shift gains significance in the context of converging media ecosystems, where distinctions between telecom, broadcasting, and digital platforms are increasingly blurred. Multiple regulators overseeing adjacent domains have often resulted in regulatory complexity—something broadcasters have flagged as a key challenge. 

The move toward a single authority could therefore streamline governance and improve ease of doing business in the sector.  

Debate over oversight and powers

It should be noted that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) was established under the TRAI Act, 1997 as an independent regulator primarily to oversee India’s rapidly evolving telecom sector, ensure fair competition, and protect consumer interests. At the time, broadcasting was not a core focus. 

However, as cable television and satellite broadcasting expanded in the early 2000s—and increasingly relied on telecom infrastructure for distribution—the government brought broadcasting and cable services within TRAI’s ambit. Over time, TRAI began issuing recommendations on tariffs, interconnection, and quality of service for broadcasters and distribution platforms. Despite this expanded role, its function in areas like television audience measurement remained largely advisory, with policy formulation and final decision-making authority continuing to rest with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.  

The TRP policy, 2026 has triggered debate around the concentration of powers within the Ministry. Naqeeb Ahmed Kazia, Partner at CMS INDUSLAW, highlighted provisions that allow the MIB to suspend, revoke, or even take over rating agencies without prior notice or compensation.

While such powers have raised concerns in some quarters, industry stakeholders maintain that the real test will lie in implementation. For broadcasters, predictability and transparency in execution remain more critical than the question of institutional design alone.

Legal headwinds limited

On the legal front, the possibility of a challenge from TRAI cannot be entirely ruled out. Experts suggest that TRAI could examine whether audience measurement systems fall within its statutory remit under the TRAI Act, 1997.

However, given that TRAI’s historical role in television ratings was advisory rather than executive, the scope for a successful challenge appears limited. Courts have traditionally granted the government considerable latitude in policy formulation, especially in sectors like broadcasting.

Overall, the Television Ratings Policy, 2026 signals a calibrated transition toward regulatory consolidation. By formalizing the MIB’s primacy, something that already existed in practice, the government appears to be reducing ambiguity while aligning with industry demands for simpler, more coherent oversight.

For broadcasters, the shift is less about losing a regulator and more about gaining clarity. If executed effectively, the new framework could deliver a more streamlined and predictable operating environment, even as discussions around checks and balances continue to evolve.