Dwivedi, D. (2026). Green Growth as a Pillar of Viksit Bharat: Rethinking India's Environmental Policy Roadmap to 2047. International Journal for Social Studies, 12(1), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.26643/ijss/16

 

Dhipragya Dwivedi

MSc Environmental Science, Global Open University, Nagaland

UGC NET Environmental Science

dhipragya.dwivedi@gmail.com

 

Abstract

India’s ambition to become a developed nation—Viksit Bharat—by the centenary of its independence in 2047 coincides with an unprecedentedly tight global climate deadline. This paper argues that green growth is not merely an environmental accessory to the Viksit Bharat vision but a constitutive pillar of it: sustained, high-growth development is impossible on a degraded resource base, and India’s climate commitments, including net-zero by 2070 and the Panchamrit targets announced at COP26, must therefore be read as an industrial and economic strategy rather than a compliance exercise (Government of India, 2022). Drawing on the trajectory of India’s environmental policy architecture—from the National Solar Mission to the National Green Hydrogen Mission and the Life Mission—the paper assesses whether existing instruments can deliver an inclusive green transition by 2047.

The paper finds that India’s green economy could unlock a market value of roughly USD 1 trillion and sustain over 40 million jobs by 2047 if investment, innovation, and institutional capacity are scaled decisively (Council on Energy, Environment and Water [CEEW], 2025). However, several fault lines remain under-addressed: the dominance of coal in the electricity mix, the concentration of green industries and finance, the absence of robust social protection for displaced workers in fossil-fuel and agrarian livelihoods, and weak environmental federalism and enforcement. The paper proposes a rethinking of the roadmap along three axes—alignment of fiscal incentives with Net Zero goals, institutionalisation of just-transition planning at the state level, and a shift from reactive regulation toward anticipatory, technology-inclusive policy design. It concludes that Viksit Bharat, if it is to be real and enduring, must be a green, resilient, and equitable development model rather than a delayed variant of carbon-intensive growth.

 

Keywords: Green growth; Viksit Bharat 2047; net zero 2070; climate policy; Panchamrit; just transition; environmental governance; renewable energy.

 

1. Introduction

In August 2047, India will mark one hundred years of independence. The Government of India has framed this milestone as a national development benchmark—Viksit Bharat—envisioning a prosperous, inclusive, and globally influential nation (NITI Aayog, 2023). The scale of the ambition is considerable: an economy expected to grow by manifold multiples, with rising per-capita incomes, urbanisation, industrialisation, and infrastructure. Yet the very material foundation on which this growth rests—air, water, soil, forests, and a stable climate—is under severe stress. India is among the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world, confronting intensifying heatwaves, erratic monsoons, floods, and coastal risks (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2022).

The central contention of this paper is that the environmental question has been, and remains, wrongly framed as a trade-off against development. When posed as “growth versus environment,” the choice is false. Resource degradation erodes the very productivity that growth depends on: polluted air lowers labour productivity, environmental health burdens raise public expenditure, and climate disruption threatens infrastructure and agriculture. Conversely, a growth strategy that internalises ecological limits—what is conventionally termed green growth—can generate employment, innovation, and export competitiveness while protecting the resource base (World Bank, 2012). This paper therefore treats green growth not as an option superseding the Viksit Bharat agenda but as the only coherent route to it.

The analysis proceeds through several stages. Section 2 clarifies the concept of green growth and situates it within the Viksit Bharat framework. Section 3 traces the evolution of India’s environmental policy architecture. Section 4 examines the principal pillars of the green transition, while Section 5 considers the financing challenge. Section 6 interrogates governance and the imperative of a just transition. Section 7 identifies the principal challenges that demand rethinking. Section 8 offers policy recommendations, and Section 9 concludes.

 

 

2. Green Growth and the Viksit Bharat Framework

The term green growth denotes a development path that fosters economic growth and development while ensuring that natural assets continue to provide the resources and environmental services on which human well-being relies (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2011). It is distinguished from environmental regulation conceived as restraint; rather, it is a productivity paradigm in which efficiency, circularity, clean energy, and ecological restoration become sources of value. For a nation like India, green growth offers the double dividend of decoupling emissions growth from income growth while creating new industrial capability.

The Viksit Bharat programme does not, on its face, promise decarbonisation as a headline goal. Its stated outcomes—economic size, per-capita income, human development, infrastructure, and global standing—are primarily developmental. But the programme’s own planning documents, and the constitutional and legislative commitments India has made to climate action, bind the two agendas together. Through the Panchamrit—five nectar elements—announced at COP26 in Glasgow, India committed to achieving 500 GW of non-fossil fuel capacity, meeting 50 percent of its energy requirements from renewables, reducing one billion tonnes of projected emissions, cutting the emissions intensity of GDP by 45 percent from 2005 levels, and reaching net-zero emissions by 2070 (Government of India, 2022). Under the Paris Agreement, India also submitted updated Nationally Determined Contributions embedding these targets as binding elements of its climate architecture (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], 2022).

Read together, the developmental and climate agendas intersect. A Viksit Bharat that achieves high income without energy security and climate resilience would be brittle; a decarbonising India that forfeits growth and jobs would be politically and socially unsustainable. The convergence of the two is what green growth provides: a pathway in which clean technology, efficiency, and ecological restoration generate the growth dividend while enabling India’s Paris commitments (Climate Action Tracker, 2022).

 

3. The Evolution of India’s Environmental Policy Architecture

India’s environmental policy has moved in distinct phases, each reflecting shifting conceptions of the relationship between environment and development. The earliest phase, rooted in the 1970s and 1980s, was regulatory and pollution-focused, culminating in the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986, which created an umbrella legal framework for environmental protection (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change [MoEFCC], 2019). During this period the assumption was that industrialisation produced externalities that the state must constrain.

The second phase, from the 1990s to the early 2000s, coincided with economic liberalisation and the rise of global climate diplomacy. India’s stance in international negotiations during this era was markedly developmental—insisting on common but differentiated responsibilities and resisting binding emissions reductions for developing economies. Domestically, however, the seeds of a clean-energy strategy were planted, and the early 2000s saw the emergence of dedicated environmental institutions and programmes.

The third phase, which this paper argues continues into the present, is decisively green-growth oriented. The National Action Plan on Climate Change (2008) and its missions, notably the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission, signalled the shift from restraint to opportunity. The pace accelerated markedly after the Paris Agreement: renewable capacity grew rapidly, the International Solar Alliance was established, and in 2021–2022 the National Green Hydrogen Mission and the Life Mission (lifestyle for environment) were launched (Ministry of New and Renewable Energy [MNRE], 2023). The defining feature of the contemporary phase is the framing of climate action as an investment opportunity and strategic asset—an industrial policy for competitiveness—rather than a cost to be borne.

This evolution is progressive, but it has not been linear or without contradiction. Coal continues to dominate electricity generation, and the transition has proceeded unevenly across sectors. The legacy of the regulatory phase—segmented institutions, project-by-project environmental clearances, and weak enforcement—still shapes implementation (Narain, 2021). The roadmap to 2047 must therefore confront both the unfinished business of the older architecture and the new demands of a green economy.

 

4. Pillars of the Green Transition to 2047

Four pillars define the substantive content of a green-growth roadmap to 2047.

Energy transition. The energy transition is the most advanced pillar. India has positioned itself as a global renewable-energy leader, with ambitious targets for solar, wind, and green hydrogen. The domestic renewable sector’s rapid cost decline has made solar the cheapest new-build source in much of the country. Yet the share of coal in generation remains high, and grid integration, storage, and transmission are binding constraints. A credible 2047 pathway requires not only scaling renewables but a planned, socially managed phase-down of fossil capacity led by a determinedly low-carbon electricity system (Central Electricity Authority, 2023).

Industrial and resource efficiency. The second pillar is the decarbonisation of industry, transport, and buildings. India’s industrial base is heavily energy- and material-intensive, and demand for steel, cement, road transport, and aviation is projected to surge with urbanisation and income growth. Green growth in this sphere means efficiency, material substitution, circularity, and green hydrogen as a feedstock for refining, fertiliser, and steel. The National Green Hydrogen Mission exemplifies the attempt to build whole new industries on clean-energy foundations (MNRE, 2023).

Nature and adaptation. The third pillar concerns ecosystems. Forests, wetlands, and coastal systems are both carbon sinks and critical infrastructure for adaptation to climate impacts. India’s large agrarian and coastal populations depend on natural systems for livelihoods, and planetary resilience is inseparable from rural prosperity. Investment in regenerative agriculture, watershed management, forest restoration, and disaster risk reduction is therefore a core, not peripheral, element of the green transition (IPCC, 2022).

Urban sustainability. The fourth pillar is the sustainable city. Urbanisation is intrinsic to Viksit Bharat, yet Indian cities today suffer from air pollution, inadequate water and sanitation, congestion, and heat exposure. Green growth in the urban context means compact, transit-oriented, energy-efficient, and climate-resilient urban development that simultaneously lifts quality of life. This is where the health, equity, and productivity dividends of green growth are most immediately realisable.

 

5. Financing the Green Transition

The financing gap is the single most consequential obstacle to the 2047 roadmap. Estimates of India’s climate investment needs range into the trillions of dollars cumulatively, a vast multiple of current public and private outlays. Analysis by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water suggests that a full green-economy transformation by 2047 could unlock a market value of around USD 1 trillion (approximately INR 97.7 lakh crore) and sustain roughly 48 million jobs—evidence that the transition is as much an economic opportunity as a cost (CEEW, 2025).

Mobilising this capital requires three instruments in combination. First, public finance must be repurposed: subsidy regimes that currently favour fossil fuels and resource-intensive agriculture should be progressively redirected toward clean energy, green industry, and ecosystem services, with attention to fiscal sustainability and distribution. Second, private capital must be scaled through green finance markets, blended finance, and climate-aligned banking and insurance regulation, enabling domestic institutional investors to fund domestic transition assets. Third, international climate finance and technology transfer, long pledged under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement but repeatedly under-delivered, must be leveraged as a complement rather than a substitute for domestic resources (UNFCCC, 2022).

 

6. Governance, Institutions and the Just Transition

Institutions determine whether policy translates into outcomes. India’s environmental governance is marked by centralised regulation, fragmented agencies, and weak coordination between the Centre, states, and municipalities. Environmental federalism in India means that implementation depends heavily on state capacity, which varies considerably. A roadmap to 2047 therefore depends on building state-level green-planning capacity, harmonising environmental clearances with developmental priorities, and strengthening monitoring, accountability, and public participation (Narain, 2021).

Equally central is the just transition. The shift away from coal and carbon-intensive agriculture will displace workers and communities whose livelihoods are bound to those sectors. Coal-mining regions in particular face the risk of abrupt economic decline if the transition is unmanaged. A just transition requires anticipatory planning—skill development, alternative livelihoods, diversification of coal-linked districts, and robust social protection. Without it, the ecological case for green growth will founder on the legitimate resistance of affected populations, and the political sustainability of the entire agenda is jeopardised.

 

7. Challenges Demanding Rethinking

Notwithstanding the strengths of India’s framework, several challenges compel a fundamental rethinking of the roadmap. First, the incumbency of coal entails entrenched economic and political interests, and a growth-first framing can excuse indefinitely delayed phase-downs. The momentum of grid expansion, financing, and storage must be deliberately engineered to outpace coal’s inertia.

Second, the distributive dimension has been insufficiently integrated. Green industries and finance have tended to concentrate in a handful of states and firms, while energy transition costs and health externalities fall unevenly. A genuine Viksit Bharat cannot leave entire regions as the losers of decarbonisation.

Third, enforcement and data gaps undermine credibility. Air and water quality monitoring, emissions accounting, and pollution compliance are uneven and under-resourced, eroding the trust on which both domestic investment and international credibility depend (MoEFCC, 2019).

Fourth, the relationship between global commitments and domestic agency is unresolved. India has historically resisted external pressure while asserting national ownership of its climate policy. The 2047 roadmap must reconcile this sovereign stance with the urgent, cooperative demands of the global commons, particularly in a world where supply chains, finance, and trade are increasingly climate-conditioned (Climate Action Tracker, 2022).

 

8. Policy Recommendations for the Roadmap to 2047

On the basis of the preceding analysis, this paper offers five recommendations. First, align fiscal policy with Net Zero: reform subsidies and taxation so that the price signals facing households, firms, and investors consistently reinforce decarbonisation, while protecting low-income consumers through targeted transfers. Second, institutionalise just-transition planning: create a statutory framework requiring coal-linked and carbon-intensive regions to prepare transition plans with dedicated financing, so that equity is built into the design of the transition rather than bolted on in response to displacement. Third, deepen state-level green capacity: invest in sub-national institutions, aligning state power, renewable, and environmental mandates so that the 2047 vision is implemented as a federal compact. Fourth, move from reactive to anticipatory regulation: build the institutional ability to assess emerging technologies—green hydrogen, batteries, carbon removal, digital monitoring—so that regulation enables rather than lags innovation. Fifth, expand the finance market: develop sovereign green bonds, blended finance, and a climate-aligned financial regulatory framework that mobilises domestic institutional capital at the scale required (CEEW, 2025; IPCC, 2022).

 

9. Conclusion

This paper has argued that green growth must be understood as a constitutive pillar of Viksit Bharat, not an optional complement to it. India’s development and climate agendas, far from being in tension, are convergent: the resource base on which rapid, inclusive growth depends is inseparable from the environmental and climate transition that India has committed to under the Paris Agreement and its own national missions. The evidence largely supports the proposition that a green economy can be an engine of value creation and employment at the very scale the 2047 vision requires (CEEW, 2025).

Realising that promise will, however, demand a rethinking of the roadmap along financial, institutional, and distributive lines. Fossil incumbency, financing gaps, enforcement weaknesses, and uneven regional gains are not incidental obstacles but structural ones. The task for the quarter-century ahead is to build the policy architecture—fiscal alignment, just-transition planning, state capacity, anticipatory regulation, and scaled finance—that converts an aspirational vision into a managed, equitable, and credible transition. Viksit Bharat at 2047 will be judged not merely by the size of its economy but by whether that growth was built on a foundation that could endure. Green growth is that foundation.

 

References

Central Electricity Authority. (2023). National electricity plan. Ministry of Power, Government of India. (Google Scholar)

Climate Action Tracker. (2022). India’s net zero targets: Assessment. Climate Analytics & New Climate Institute. (Web)

Council on Energy, Environment and Water. (2025). Building a green economy for Viksit Bharat. CEEW. (Google Scholar / ceew.in)

Government of India. (2022). India’s Panchamrit and updated Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. (Official / UNFCCC upload)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press. (Google Scholar / IPCC)

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. (2019). Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the environmental governance framework. MoEFCC, Government of India. (Official)

Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. (2023). National Green Hydrogen Mission and renewable energy roadmap. MNRE, Government of India. (Official / Google Scholar)

NITI Aayog. (2023). Viksit Bharat @2047: Vision document and roadmap. Government of India. (Google Scholar / niti.gov.in)

Narain, S. (2021). Confronting the realities of environmental governance and clearance in India. Centre for Science and Environment. (Google Scholar / ResearchGate)

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). Towards green growth. OECD Publishing. (Google Scholar)

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2022). India’s updated first Nationally Determined Contribution. UNFCCC Secretariat. (Official / UNFCCC.int)

World Bank. (2012). Inclusive green growth: The pathway to sustainable development. World Bank Publications. (Google Scholar)

Read more ...

Indian Television Rating Point Policy 2026: an overview

Citation

Sharma, A., & Mohan, V. (2026). Indian Television Rating Point Policy 2026: an overview. International Journal for Social Studies, 12(2), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.26643/ijss/13

Amit Sharma, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Allahabad, Bharat.

Email: jmcamit@gmail.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9589-2245

 

Vimal Mohan, Ph.D.

Senior Sports Editor, NDTV India

Email: vimal236@gmail.com

Abstract

Television Rating Points (TRPs) are, in a way, a driving force for the Indian television industry. They indicate channels’ popularity, a program’s success, and advertising revenue. In India’s multi-channel culture, competition among channels often leads to a tendency to choose the easier path of sensationalism over infotainment. India has also witnessed declining content quality and manipulation among TV channels. Hence, questions about TRP credibility and transparency have become prevalent.

This study analyses the evolution of India’s TRP policy from its inception to the Television Rating Policy 2026.Television in India began in 1959 and expanded with colour broadcasting in 1982. Until the 1990s, Doordarshan held a monopoly and TRP was not an issue. Post-1991 liberalization introduced a culture and business of private channels. This intensified competition, and TRP became the primary metric for advertising. TAM Media Research pioneered audience measurement in the 1990s. But concerns over the reliability of research-based measurement led to the Government of India’s 2014 TRP guidelines. Under these guidelines, BARC was appointed as the official body. The guidelines mandated data confidentiality and household panel rotation to ensure fairness. However, over time, shifts in viewers’ habits toward mobile and OTT platforms, along with TRP-related controversies, made reforms necessary. The TV Rating Point Policy 2026 addresses these challenges. It has:

A) reduced the net worth requirement for rating agencies,

B) mandated board independence,

C) expanded the sample size to 120,000 homes, and

D) integrated data from DTH, cable, internet, and connected TV.

E) It has also introduced mandatory quarterly internal audits and annual third-party audits to enhance transparency.

The 2026 policy is an attempt to modernize measurement by emphasizing technology. It aims to restore credibility. While global systems such as Nielsen, BARB, and OzTAM already include cross-platform measurement, India’s earlier focus was TV-centric. Now, the 2026 policy aims to make TRP a more accurate, transparent reflection of India’s evolving media consumption.

Keywords: TV audience measurement, popularity of program, OTT, digital media, news, new TV policy

Introduction

TRP stands for Television Rating Point. It is a certified measure to gauge the popularity and audience numbers of specific TV programs or channels in the field of news and entertainment, used in over 100 countries worldwide. Higher TRP is considered evidence that a larger number of people have watched a particular program during a specific time period. The importance of a Television Rating Point, or TRP, has always been very high in the TV industry. The popularity of any channel, the success of its programs, and the rate of advertisements all depend on TRP. The rise or fall in the TRP of any program reflects its popularity among people. Higher TRP means that more and more viewers watch that program, and that program is receiving more advertisements and revenue. However, in the era of commercialization, television channels have adopted new tactics for cheap popularity to increase TRP. Instead of clean infotainment, news or entertainment, the work of selling vulgarity to the audience has been done, and news channels have started selling drama instead of news (Nayak, 2021). In some cases, news channels have affected the television rating research. In such a scenario, the Government of India replaced the old TRP policy of 2014 with the TV Rating Policy 2026. The present article attempts to analyze the TRP policy from its initial to the current form.

The television started in India in 1959. In 1982, television became coloured and live broadcasting also became possible. After this, the popularity of television increased greatly.  In the 1980s, TV serials like Ramayana and Mahabharata were so popular that streets would empty during their broadcast. People finished essential work early and sat in front of their TV sets ahead of time. Beyond families, entire villages and communities gathered together, turning television into a platform for community viewing. Even after this, several popular programs like Hum Log, Buniyaad, and Chitrahaar increased the popularity of TV in Indian society. However, by then, Doordarshan had a monopoly in India. Since there were no private channels, there was no competition among channels. Channels like Doordarshan's DD Metro were operating (Jalarajan & Suresh, 2023). Until the mid-1990s, TRP was not an issue in India. After the economic crisis in 1991, the LPG (Liberalization, Privatization, and Globalization) policy adopted by the Government of India had a profound impact on Indian news channels and the television industry (Ahmad, 2021). This policy ended the government monopoly in the news and entertainment sector and opened the doors for private sector television channels (Belladi, 2025).

The beginning of audience measurement in the 1990s was through TAM Media Research. TAM Media Research played an important role in the field of television audience measurement (TRP) in India, which introduced modern techniques in media measurement. The expansion and standardization of cable and satellite TV in India began in the early 1990s. It completely transformed the landscape of Indian television. TRP became the main source for advertising, and channels started chasing programs that increased ratings and sensational journalism. As a result, competition in the media increased rapidly, and the importance of the TRP system to understand viewers' preferences grew even more. Amid this growing need, there was a demand to regulate the TRP system. Initially, agencies like TAM measured viewer preferences, but continuous questions were raised about the transparency and reliability of these agencies. Keeping this in mind, in 2014 the government issued guidelines for the TRP system for the first time, so that audience research could have a robust framework and people could continue to trust TRP. Issuing new guidelines for TRP was a major structural change. Under this policy, the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) was officially given the responsibility of measuring TRP in India. The main objective of the 2014 policy was to make the system transparent and fair. It ensured that no channel or advertiser could influence the agency involved in measuring TRP (Kulkarni, 2024).

The TRP policy issued in 2014 made it mandatory to change 25 percent of the households included in the panel every year to maintain the accuracy and confidentiality of the data. This rotation was to be carried out in a phased manner each month so that new households could replace the old ones. These guidelines were much better for tracking cable TV and satellite. At that time, this step was quite necessary because the TRP system got a strong framework (Kulkarni, 2024). But over time, new challenges started to emerge. Audience habits began to change. People started watching TV content not only on television but also on mobile and OTT platforms. In addition, controversies related to TRP also affected the credibility of the system (S. Kumar et al., 2021).

TV rating policy 2026

Now, if we talk about 2026, the TRP system is not the same as before. Today, it cannot be limited to just TV. Therefore, work is now being done to include digital viewership in it. Emphasis is being given on increasing sample size, making data collection more scientific, and conducting technology-based research. At the same time, monitoring of the system has also become stricter than before to prevent any kind of irregularity. On March 27, 2026, the new TV rating policy 2026 was implemented. The main objective of this policy is to improve the measurement of TRP and to bring accurate audience figures to light (Dutta, 2026).

Several important changes have been made under the new policy. Firstly, the net worth requirement for rating agencies has been reduced from 20 crore to 5 crore, making it easier for new agencies to enter this sector. Additionally, it has been made mandatory that at least 50% of the board of directors should have no association with any broadcaster, advertiser, or advertising agency. This will help prevent conflicts of interest and maintain the impartiality of the system. At the same time, agencies have also been prohibited from providing consultancy services that could affect impartiality (Bansal, 2026).

The new policy also emphasizes increasing the sample size. The new policy clarifies that agencies will have to expand their operations to 80,000 surveyed homes within 18 months. However, the same work has to be done in 6 months for the existing rating agency. Research agencies will eventually have to reach 120,000 homes to improve the accuracy of the data (Bansal, 2026). A major change has also been made at the technological level. Now, data collection will be promoted through DTH, cable, internet, and connected TV, which will help in better understanding the actual preferences of the audience. Along with this, the dual audit system has been made mandatory. Internal audits will have to be conducted every quarter, and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of India will have to be provided with complete information in this regard. In this context, once a year, the entire research data will have to be externally audited by a chartered accountant (CA) or firm. This will strengthen transparency and accountability in the system.

Television Rating Points and manipulation

Television Rating Points (TRP) is primarily indicators of popularity of Indian television shows or programs. They are a market driver for stories and TV shows. The TRP is very important because advertising revenue worth thousands of crores depends on it. However, the TRP is also faces manipulation and scandals. Hence policy reforms become the need of the hours. Some of the most notable recent controversies are as follows:

The 2020 TRP Scam: The 2020 TRP scam, or TRP controversy, shook the entire television industry in India. It led to the TRP Policy 2026 reforms. In October 2020, Mumbai Police and the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) alleged that several TV channels manipulated TRPs by bribing households. During this time, serious allegations were also made that houses equipped with BARC's 'BAR-o-meter' were paid monthly to manipulate TRP. These homes received cash to keep specific channels running continuously, without the audience. This artificially inflated viewership numbers, which were then reflected in TRP charts. The channels involved in the controversy included Republic TV, Box Cinema, and Fakt Marathi, among others. Arnab Goswami’s channel ‘Republic TV’ was the primary accused. Mumbai Police claimed that Republic TV manipulated data to become the No. 1 English news channel (Saigal, 2020). Republic denied charges and called this action a “witch-hunt.” Two other channels were also named in the FIR for paying households ₹400–₹500 per month to watch them. ‘News Nation’ and ‘India Today’ were also initially named, but they were later given a clean chit.

Major actions were taken to prevent manipulation: A) BARC suspended weekly ratings for all news channels for 12 weeks, from October 2020 to January 2021 (Press Trust of India, 2020), to review its system. B) The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) formed a committee under Prasar Bharati CEO Shashi Shekhar Vempati to review TRP guidelines (Jha, 2020). C) The case exposed flaws in the 2014 policy, such as: a) a small sample size of only 44,000 metered homes, b) a lack of third-party audits, and c) vulnerability to panel infiltration (Press Trust of India, 2020).

It directly influenced the TRP Policy 2026, which introduced a larger sample size, stricter audits, and reduced entry barriers for new rating agencies.

News Channels and Unhealthy, Sensational Content for TRP: TRP pressure has pushed news channels toward sensationalism. For instance:

A) Sushant Singh Rajput Case Coverage, 2020: Several channels ran 24x7 speculative coverage, conspiracy theories, and live “re-enactments.” Republic TV, Times Now, and Aaj Tak saw massive TRP spikes during June–August 2020. The News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) fined channels; called the coverage “highly inappropriate.” Critics argued that channels manufactured drama instead of news to chase TRPs (Priyadarshini, 2021).

B) COVID-19 Misinformation: During 2020–21, some channels ran unverified “cures” and pushed communal angles to boost engagement. BARC data showed the news genre’s share jumped from 7% to 21% in March 2020, creating a race for eyeballs.

C) “Media Trials”: Cases like Aarushi Talwar, Sheena Bora, and Hathras were turned into daily soaps. In 2021, the Supreme Court noted that “media trials affect the administration of justice” and are often TRP-driven.

Entertainment channels: Not just news channels, general entertainment channels have also used questionable methods to boost their TRPs. These channels created fake social media chatter and bought YouTube views to generate buzz. There were controversies around BARC’s own functioning too. These included delays in releasing data & an alleged ‘lack of transparency,’ among other issues. Reports indicated that BARC’s 44,000 metered homes under-represented rural India and digital viewers. A channel could trend in cities but have zero rural sample. Hence, the data representing national TRPs was distorted.  

Manipulation on OTT Platforms: India has a massive consumer base on OTT platforms, with roughly 45 crore-plus users. The conventional TRP mechanism does not count OTT audiences. Many advertisers have now started focusing on ‘cross-platform measurement’ instead of relying only on BARC.

The 2020 TRP scam was a wake-up call to establish a proper system for India’s multi-channel — 900-plus channel — culture. However, BARC still remains the official method for measuring the popularity metrics of TV channels. The above-mentioned controversies proved that without transparency, technology, and cross-platform measurement, the TRP race can ruin the ecosystem. The TRP Policy 2026 is an attempt to fix these lacunae.  

Methodology beyond the Television Rating Point

In India, the work of measuring TRP is mainly carried out by BARC (Broadcast Audience Research Council), which includes organizations like IBDF, ISA, and AAAI. Earlier, TAM (AC Nielsen and Kantar) has also worked in this field. BARC was formed in 2014 for TV ratings in India. After joining TAM, BARC has been established as the world's largest TRP measurement agency; it is the country's only rating body that operates for the ratings of television in both the private and government sectors. However, DART, that is, Doordarshan Audience Research TV Ratings, is a government agency that uses only Doordarshan viewers as samples for research. DART also include samples from rural areas (Goyal, 2020).

BARK has installed Bar-O-Meters in nearly 6,000 homes with the cooperation of the television audience meter. Bar-O-Meters record programs watched at home on television through special watermarks present in the programs. The use of watermarking technology has brought significant accuracy to BARC's TV rating-related data. Currently, BARC is providing TRP-related services to more than 470 channels. The monitoring team for TV rating research gathers information about programs watched on TV every minute through the Bar-O-Meters. After this, by analyzing these data, the research team releases all the TRP-related figures for all channels (Chaturvedi, 2020).

In today's time, where OTT & digital media platforms are rapidly advancing, the new TRP policy can also prove helpful in understanding the changing preferences of the audience. This will make it soothing for advertisers to reach the right audience. They can plan the best mode and medium for their advertisements more effectively. 

Its impact could be visible on the content too. When channels receive accurate and clear data, they will try to create programs according to audience preferences. This will give viewers a better experience. The biggest update in the new TRP-2026 policy has developed according to the audit system. Now, there will be strict monitoring of the rating agencies' work. Periodic third-party audits are mandatory now; strict action has to be taken if any irregularities are detected. The government believes bring transparency into the TRP data and establishing people's trust in the TRP system.

In addition, importance has also been given to increasing the sample size. More households have to include in the process of measuring TRP compared to before. Especially small towns and rural areas have also given a place, allowing the real preferences of the audience to be better reflected. Until now, due to limited samples, questions often arose about whether TRP accurately represents the entire country. 

Another significant change in the updated policy is that competition in the field of TRP measurement has to be promoted. Until now, this responsibility mainly rested with the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC), but under the new system, other agencies may also get a chance. The main reason behind this decision is to reduce monopoly and increase the reliability of the data.

Traditional TV verses OTT platforms

When traditional TV mediums like DTH (Direct-to-Home) & streaming services are compared, it clearly shows how viewers' preferences are changing. Earlier, people used to watch TV at a scheduled time to see their favorite programs. But now, OTT platforms have drastically changed this entire system. 'On-demand content' provided viewers an opportunity to watch the content of their choice anytime as well as anywhere. During the early days, TV was watched on community TV sets, but with the technology, the TV-watching habit also changed, and TV went to the living room. With the TV, social & cultural changes keeping pace with technology turned TV into a personal medium of entertainment. Now TV can be watched on mobile, iPad, and tablet. All infotainment content for TV is now available on OTT platforms.

DTH is a traditional broadcasting service where content reaches the audience through a specific span and channel. The audience doesn’t have the right to change or control this time and channel. In contrast, OTT platforms provide content via the internet, where users can watch movies, web series, or any show as per their convenience. Due to this facility, especially the youth are rapidly being attracted towards OTT. The variety of content on OTT platforms is also more visible. Here, content ranging from regional languages to the international scenario is easily available, whereas in DTH, content is limited to channels. OTT platforms use algorithms to understand audience preferences and suggest content that make audience’s experience more personalized (Sharma & Kumar, 2024).

However, DTH service is not completely out of use; it has a very important viewership portion. Especially in rural areas and places where internet access is limited, DTH still remains a reliable medium. People still rely more on DTH for live news, sports, and other real-time programs. The live content of OTT platforms is gradually increasing, but it has not become an alternative to DTH completely. The TRP-2026 policy has been developed with a focus on including digital viewership. Because if data is prepared based on TV viewers only, it will be incomplete. Today's audiences are not limited to TV alone but also watch content on mobile, laptops etc. This shift among the DTH & OTT is not just about technology; it also includes the alteration in the mindset and audience’s habits. The aim of the TRP-2026 policy is to create a framework keeping these changes in mind, in which a person can include both traditional and digital mediums.

Television Rating Policy-2026 is a reflection of the changes that happened in the Indian media industry—where transparency and technological development are placed in the middle. If we compare both TRP policies of 2014 & 2026, the difference can be measured. In 2014, the focus was entirely on establishing and controlling the system, whereas in 2026’s policy, the focus is on modernization and making it more reliable. The TRP 2014 guidelines were primarily related to traditional TV, while the 2026 system also takes digital and OTT platforms into account. The TRP policy-2014 laid the foundation, whereas the policy for 2026 is going to strengthen and update that foundation as per the current need. Today, TRP is linked with the credibility of the media industry and audience’s trust. So transparency, technology, and reliability is become important in new updated guidelines (Behera, 2026).

Television Rating Point Measurement in World  

Television Rating Point (TRP) has always held great importance for the TV industry. The popularity programs, the position of any channel, & advertisement rates largely depend on TRP. In foreign countries, the TRP system measurement is more developed, technically strong, and continuously evolving over the ages. TRP is known as "Audience Measurement" worldwide. Here, it is being measured what people are watching on the TV and what kind of content they are consuming on mobile, laptop, or OTT platforms (Kumar & Sharma, 2023). So, data become more comprehensive and accurate.

Nielsen Company measures TV ratings in America. This company has been working from TRP for years ago and is considered quite reliable. Nielsen's method is both simple and scientific. Under this, some selected households are chosen as samples. In these homes, a special device called a 'People Meter' is installed, which records which channel is being watched more. Every member of the household has a separate identity. With this unique identity, it can be measured which age and class’s people is watching the said program. Nowadays, Nielsen has updated its system to include digital platforms.

In Britain, the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (BARB) conducts TRP measurement. The system here is also quite organized. BARB prepares a group of thousands of households, in which special meters are installed. Whenever a person watches TV, s/he registers her/his presence using a remote. This provides information about which person is watching which program. In this way, very accurate data is collected. Now BARB has also changed the system, and digital platforms like OTT and video streaming services are included in the TRP. It makes it easy to understand the audience’s real preferences.

In Australia, OzTAM does the TRP measurement. The OzTAM also uses almost the same method, which relies on sample homes and modern meter technology. In this rating, instead of being limited to traditional TV, digital viewing is also being given importance. Now more effort is being made to know where and how the audience is watching content, not just what they are watching on TV. In China, CSM Media Research performs TRP-rated work. China's network is vast. Here, the TRP agency collects data from a large-scale set-top box along with people meters.  

If we look at the TRP policy and process of the major countries in the world as a whole, we will find that there has been a significant change in the measurement and importance of TRP. The measurement of TRP is no longer limited to TV but has now evolved with a ‘cross-platform system.’ This includes TV, mobile, laptop, & OTT. This makes the data more transparent and reliable. When we compare the TRP measurement policy and process between the India and developing and developed countries, this variance is clearly visible. India’s focus is still mainly on TV viewership, whereas in global TRP guidelines, they are a step further to include digital platforms as well. Hence, the collected TRP data is more comprehensive and realistic. The TRP measurement system abroad has developed significantly over time. It has become an important means of measuring the changing habits of audiences and the evolving character of media. India has shifted to an era where TRP is not limited to TV alone; it includes every screen where viewers are watching content.

Conclusion

Keeping the digital era in mind, the new TV Rating Policy-2026 considered the future needs. Today, viewers are, inter alia, traditional TV, and people watching content on mobile and OTT platforms. The new TRP policy is able to cope with the future requirement and bring these platforms within the scope of measurement. Experts believe that the biggest impact of this policy will be on TV channels and the advertising market. Now, channels are focused on the quality of content rather than just increasing TRP. Meanwhile, advertisers will get more reliable data, allowing them to invest in the right platform. Overall, TV Rating Policy-2026 has brought an important change in the Indian media industry. However, its real success will depend on its effective implementation. This policy will provide new strength to transparency and trust. In the beginning, some challenges may arise, such as adopting new technologies and implementing the rules correctly. But gradually, these difficulties can decrease. Overall, the TV Rating Policy 2026 is considered a big and positive step for the Indian media industry.

In this changing era, advertisers had changed their strategy. Earlier, the advertiser used to allot advertisements mainly to TV channels; now they provide an important portion of their advertisements to the OTT and digital platforms. Hence, there was an urgent need to make the TRP system modern and comprehensive so that it could correctly understand the real behaviour of the audience. The new TRP policy is as per the need of the requirement of the time.

References

Ahmad, W. (2021). Impact of Liberalization Privatization Globalization (LPG) On the Indian Economy: From 1991 To 2019. Eurasian Journal of Management & Social Sciences, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.23918/ejmss.V2i2p43

Bansal, S. (2026, April 3). New TV Rating Policy Too Little, Too Late? https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/mumbai-news/new-tv-rating-policy-too-little-too-late-101775158868057.html

Behera, R. (2026, March 28). What the new Television Rating Policy means, and why it was needed. Tribune. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/india/what-the-new-television-rating-policy-means-and-why-it-was-needed/

Belladi, S. (2025). Transformation of Journalism in India and the rise of the Fifth Estate, a critical appraisal. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 12(1), 2498187. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2025.2498187

Chaturvedi, M. (2020, October 9). What is TRP and how it is calculated: Check here. India Today. https://www.indiatoday.in/information/story/what-is-trp-and-how-it-is-calculated-check-here-1729909-2020-10-09

Dutta, A. N. (2026, March 28). Govt’s new TV Ratings Policy Defines Rules for Accountability, Transparency. Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/govts-new-tv-ratings-policy-defines-rules-for-accountability-transparency-10605374/

Goyal, S. (2020, October 8). What is TRP and how is it calculated? Jagranjosh. https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/what-is-trp-and-how-is-it-calculated-1524137013-1

Jalarajan, R. S., & Suresh, A. K. (2023). Indian Television and the Rise of the Local. In S. M. S. Reza & R. K. Roy, Television Publics in South Asia (1st ed., pp. 74–90). Routledge India. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003377740-6

Jha, L. (2020, November 4). I&B ministry sets up committee to review guidelines for TV rating agencies. Mint. https://www.livemint.com/industry/media/i-b-ministry-sets-up-committee-to-review-guidelines-for-tv-rating-agencies-11604503705796.html

Kulkarni, S. (2024, December 10). What is the Meaning of TRP & How it is calculated? The Media Ant. https://www.themediaant.com/blog/what-is-the-meaning-of-trp/

Kumar, M., & Sharma, A. (2023). Disinformation and social media: Review of the film Afwaah. Media Asia, 51(3), 519–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/01296612.2023.2244747

Kumar, S., Sharma, A., & Verma, V. (2021). Social Media A Tool for Social and Political Inclusion among Youth: A Study of Indian University Students. Current Research Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(1), 82–89. https://doi.org/10.12944/CRJSSH.4.1.08

Nayak, S. N. (2021). New Perspectives on the Annals of R.K. Narayan: Reflections and Ruminations. In L. C. Mihăeş, R. Andreescu, & A. Dimitriu (Eds.), Advances in Linguistics and Communication Studies (pp. 300–313). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-6605-3.ch016

Press Trust of India. (2020, October 15). TRP scam: BARC temporarily suspends weekly ratings ofnews channels. Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/trp-scam-barc-temporarily-suspends-weekly-ratings-of-news-channels/articleshow/78676994.cms

Priyadarshini, A. (2021, April 16). NBSA dismisses Aaj Tak’s review plea: Will channel now apologise for its Sushant Singh Rajput coverage? Newslaundry. https://www.newslaundry.com/2021/04/16/nbsa-dismisses-aaj-taks-review-plea-will-channel-now-apologise-for-its-sushant-singh-rajput-coverage

Saigal, S. (2020, November 24). Mumbai police file charge sheet in TRP manipulation case. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/mumbai-police-file-charge-sheet-in-trp-manipulation-case/article33167256.ece

Sharma, A., & Kumar, M. (2024). Infodemic, migration and social inequality: Review of the film Bheed. Media Asia, 51(3), 512–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/01296612.2023.2210433

 

Read more ...