Broadcasting Without Rules: PM Modi, MCC Gaps And An Uneven Playing Field

“Congress, DMK, TMC aur Samajwadi Party jaise dalon ki swarthi rajneeti ka nuksaan desh ki naari shakti ko uthana pada hai… yeh desh ki naari shakti ke apraadhi hain… ye bhrun hatya ke gunahgaar hain” (parties like the Congress, the DMK, the TMC and the Samajwadi Party, through their selfish politics, have harmed the women of this country. They are criminals. They are guilty of foeticide).

These are the words of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a recent nationwide address on Doordarshan and All India Radio (AIR), where he directly attacked opposition parties during ongoing state elections, something barred under the Election Commission’s Model Code of Conduct (MCC). During the address, Modi used the word “Congress” 59 times, “women” 45 times, and “reservation” 11 times, reflecting a clear, pointed attack on the Opposition.

This, however, is not the first time. During the 2019 General Election, Doordarshan, an autonomous public service broadcaster founded by the central government in 1959, aired extensive coverage of his Kedarnath visit just before polling. Modi’s “Mann Ki Baat” was used extensively to reach a wider audience before the 2019 elections.

Since 2014, a broader reliance on state media has been criticised as a tool to shape political messaging, giving the ruling party an advantage. The contrast is stark. In 1975, Indira Gandhi was disqualified by the Allahabad High Court for misusing state machinery during the 1971 Rae Bareli Lok Sabha election. Critics argue that similar concerns today have not led to comparable action under Modi.

Opposition parties have repeatedly argued before the Election Commission of India that such broadcasts create an “uneven playing field” and blur the line between official communication and political campaigning. This time, however, over 700 citizens, including public intellectuals Ashish Joshi, G.N. Devy and Yogendra Yadav, along with opposition parties, have approached the Election Commi­ssion, calling his action a “serious breach” of the MCC.

Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader M.A. Baby says such addresses are usually reserved for major national issues, but in this case, it was “out and out political messaging… a virulent attack on opposition parties”. He called it a “serious violation” of the MCC.

This is not limited to the use of public broadcasters. Over the years, sections of television news, often described by critics as “godi media”, have been accused of disproportionately amplifying PM Modi while shrinking space for opposition voices. During election cycles in particular, critics argue that coverage becomes heavily skewed, with the PM’s speeches, rallies and messaging dominating airtime, leaving little room for scrutiny or for rival parties to present their case, thereby raising concerns about the erosion of a level media playing field.

Studies on Indian media have flagged how selective television coverage shapes political perception. As one analysis notes, TV channels with a pro-government tilt often “focus on the achievements of the ruling party” while downplaying alternatives, meaning such selective visibility can shape how voters perceive political choices.

The MCC, particularly its section on the “party in power”, prohibits the use of official mass media for partisan purposes during elections. Yet, how this applies to nationwide addresses remains contested.

S.Y. Quraishi, who served as the 17th Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) of India until June 2012, says that the speech given by PM Modi was political in nature and was delivered through a public broadcaster, something that is not allowed when the election process is underway and the Model Code is in operation. “The Prime Minister making a political speech while others are not allowed violates the principle of a level playing field,” he says.

“India may not have a formal equal airtime rule, but there has been a system of equitable time on public broadcasters based on seat share for many years,” he says. This system, enabled by Section 39A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and implemented through Election Commission guidelines, ensures that recognised parties get access to state media in proportion to their strength.

The debate has since widened to the role of the Election Commission in enforcing basic norms such as equal airtime and avoiding political campaign speeches during elections. Moreover, this raises questions about public broadcasters that are financed by taxpayers and are expected to function with neutrality, particularly during elections.

Quraishi criticises the Election Commission, saying it should have served a notice to the defaulting party, examined the matter, and come to a decision. “They have done nothing of the sort—they have just ignored it despite a public complaint,” he says, adding that there is no need for more regulation from the Election Commission but for honest implementation of what already exists.

T. N. Krishnamurthy, the 13th CEC of India, explains that national TV and radio cannot give “undue advantage” to ruling parties during elections, but governments can still make nationwide announcements as long as they “don’t target poll-bound states specifically”. He notes that this creates an anomaly, suggesting that simultaneous elections could help “remove or regulate this”.

He also stresses that the MCC needs updating for today’s media environment, saying there is “definitely a case for review” of how it applies to social and electronic media. More broadly, he argues for a comprehensive law to regulate political parties across both election and non-election periods, something already recommended by the Election Commission and past committees.

However, he mentions a key challenge—“election reforms do not seem to attract the attention of most political parties” as they appear largely content with the status quo.

Legal experts point to deeper structural gaps in India’s election framework. The MCC, designed for an analogue era, struggles to regulate today’s hybrid media ecosystem. As digital rights advocate Apar Gupta puts it, “a prime ministerial address carried on Doordarshan and All India Radio is paid for by the public… when that address names opposition parties… it becomes campaign speech subsidi­sed by the state.” He argues that while Section 39A of the Representation of the People Act ensures equitable air­time, it applies only to public broadcasters. “The law gua­r­a­ntees fairness on the smallest stage and ignores the largest.”

The imbalance is even sharper online. With no cap on political ad spending, limited transparency, and reliance on voluntary codes, enforcement remains weak. In such an ecosystem, Gupta notes, “once you remove a formal equal-time obligation, the more aggressive and financially resourced content operation wins by default,” aided by government-backed reach and microtargeting. The result, he adds, is that the MCC functions more as “a thin layer of decorum,” while even “the visibility of dissent is shaped by the state.”

These concerns have also put the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023, under scrutiny. Despite expanding oversight across TV, OTT, and digital news, Gupta calls it “an authoritarian legislative proposal,” noting that “what it doesn’t do is also revealing”, there is no equal-time mandate for private or digital platforms, no robust political ad transparency, and no cap on government messaging during elections.

Public intellectual G.N. Devy flags two concerns: the use of state platforms and the nature of the content. “If any minister or government uses state-run media during elections, then opposition parties should also get equal time. That is a time-honoured convention,” he says, adding that by using government money and government platforms, the prime minister is doing “propaganda for his political party.”

M. A. Baby argues that public broadcasters like AIR and Doordarshan have increasingly functioned as “His Master’s Voice”, adding that these platforms have now virtually been converted into an official broadcaster of the BJP. He says the complaint to the Election Commission clearly argues that the address was political messaging barred under the MCC. “The line is already drawn. But will the ECI act?” he asks.

Zenaira Bakhsh is an Assistant Editor at Outlook. She covers governance, minority rights, gender and conflict

This article is part of the magazine issue dated May 11, 2026, called 'Khela Hobe? ' about Assembly Elections 2026 and how West Bengal may prove to be the toughest battleground for the Bharatiya Janata Party.