Fund Akashvani and Doordarshan Fully and Directly

A democracy works only when its citizens are well informed. They need accurate news about the political, social and economic forces shaping their lives, so that they can form their own opinions and vote freely and fairly. That is why the press is called the fourth estate.

Today much of that estate is a business. Commercial broadcasters answer to advertisers and owners. Paid news, shouting-match debates and, now, fabricated videos and viral falsehoods compete for the same attention. Left unchecked, this drift leads towards a corporate democracy rather than the citizens’ democracy the founders of our Constitution imagined.

In such a landscape, a national broadcaster that is neither controlled by nor dependent on market and corporate forces is not a luxury. It is part of the infrastructure of democracy. For any media organisation, the source of its money decides whose interests it serves. Once, the main threat to Akashvani and Doordarshan was political. Today it is the pressure to earn their own way in a market built for profit, and the answer to that pressure is public money, given directly, completely and with its independence protected by law.

A mandate from Parliament, not from the market

Parliament did not ask Akashvani and Doordarshan to make money. Section 12(1) of the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990 makes it the Corporation’s primary duty to organise and conduct public broadcasting services to inform, educate and entertain the public, and to ensure a balanced development of radio and television.

Section 12(2) then spells out sixteen duties, from clause (a), upholding the unity and integrity of the country and the values enshrined in the Constitution, to clause (p), expanding broadcasting facilities. In between are duties no advertiser will pay for: safeguarding the citizen’s right to be informed freely, truthfully and objectively, giving special attention to education, agriculture, rural development, health and the environment, serving rural and weaker sections, minorities and tribal communities, and promoting national integration.

These are social-sector duties. Governments spend lakhs of crores of rupees on schemes for farmers, the poor and people in remote and border areas; Akashvani and Doordarshan are the bridge that carries that information to the people it is meant for, in their own languages. A broadcaster asked to do this cannot also be asked to compete with commercial channels for advertising, any more than a government school can be asked to fund itself from fees.

The market cannot pay for a public mission

The latest figures show what happens when a public broadcaster is told to fend for itself: its commercial income shrinks, its government grant edges down, and the gap is filled by selling space to private channels.

Measure (Rs crore)	Earlier	Latest	Change
Prasar Bharati’s own revenue	1,815.07 (2023-24)	1,643.35 (2024-25)	-9.46%
Doordarshan commercial revenue	371.48 (2023-24)	256.74 (2024-25)	-30.89%
Akashvani commercial revenue	260.43 (2023-24)	222.73 (2024-25)	-14.47%
DD FreeDish slot auction	780 (for 2025-26)	642 (for 2026-27)	-17.7%
Funds released by the I&B Ministry	2,937.05 (2023-24)	2,641.46 (2024-25)	-10.1%
Regular grant to Prasar Bharati	2,424.55 (actual, 2024-25)	2,291.88 (budget, 2026-27)	-5.5%

Three facts stand out.

Advertising is not a foundation. Doordarshan lost almost a third of its commercial revenue in a single year. Akashvani and Doordarshan together earned Rs 587.78 crore from non-government advertising across 2022 to 2025, a small fraction of what they cost to run.
The money now comes from renting space to private channels. DD FreeDish slot sales brought in Rs 1,060.71 crore in 2024-25, about 65% of Prasar Bharati’s own revenue. The latest auction raised 18% less, with 55 slots sold against 61. A public broadcaster whose survival depends on selling its platform to commercial channels is exactly what market dependence looks like.
The government pays only part of the bill. Since 2012 the Centre has paid the salaries of government employees on deemed deputation. Everything else, including programmes, administration, satellite and spectrum charges and the salaries of staff Prasar Bharati recruited after October 2007, must come from its own shrinking income.

The revised estimate for 2025-26 showed a one-off rise to Rs 4,059.24 crore, which the budget papers do not explain. Leaving that aside, the regular grant is falling while the duties stay the same.

What the world learned in 2025 and 2026

Across the democratic world, the countries that value public media are securing its money in law and for years at a time. The one that left it to the annual mood of politics has lost its public-media funding body altogether.

Country	What happened	The lesson for India
European Union	Since 8 August 2025, Article 5 of the European Media Freedom Act requires member states to give public service media adequate, sustainable and predictable funding, set by transparent, objective criteria laid down in advance, and preferably decided for several years at a time	Funding is now treated as a condition of independence, not a threat to it
United States	In July 2025 Congress clawed back $1.1 billion already approved for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; in January 2026 its board voted to dissolve it	Public media that depends on year-to-year political choices can lose its funding overnight
Switzerland	On 8 March 2026 voters rejected, by 62% to 38%, a proposal to cut the household broadcasting fee from 335 to 200 francs a year	When asked directly, citizens chose to keep paying for strong public media
United Kingdom	The government opened the BBC Charter review on 16 December 2025, asking how to put the BBC on a sustainable footing and strengthen its independence; the licence fee rose to £180 a household from 1 April 2026	Even the best-known public broadcaster is rethinking how to secure its money for the long term
Germany	The household fee has been frozen at €18.36 a month since the states refused the increase recommended by the independent commission; ARD and ZDF have gone to the Constitutional Court	An independent expert body sets the level; in 2021 the Constitutional Court enforced its recommendation when one state blocked it
Finland	Yle is funded from the state budget, through the State Television and Radio Fund; its annual inflation increases are frozen for 2025 to 2027, costing it about €47 million in 2027 alone	Tax-based funding works, but needs protection against cuts by stealth
Czech Republic	The government plans to replace the licence fee with funding from the state budget; in April 2026 the European Broadcasting Union warned that the change must not weaken independence	Direct funding must come with safeguards written into law
Australia	The ABC and SBS have been funded on five-year terms since July 2023, and the government has committed to put those terms into law	Multi-year funding protects programming from annual budget pressure
Canada	Budget 2025, tabled on 4 November 2025, added $150 million for CBC/Radio-Canada and promised to strengthen its independence	Some governments are investing more in public broadcasting, not less

The direction is clear. Democracies are moving towards public money that is predictable, set in advance and protected from interference. India should lead that movement, not lag behind it.

Licence fee or grant, it is the people’s money

Whether the money reaches the broadcaster through a licence fee or a grant from the Consolidated Fund of India, it comes from the same people. A licence fee is collected from owners of television and radio sets for one purpose. A grant comes from a common pool of taxes, which is also collected from all of us, directly or indirectly. Both are taxpayers’ money.

India has already weighed the licence fee and set it aside: a Group of Ministers rejected the I&B Ministry’s proposal to charge one in 2007. Today the case against it is stronger still. A fee on sets would fall hardest on poor households, would cost a great deal to collect, and makes little sense when millions watch on mobile phones or on free DTH.

The Nordic countries reached the same conclusion from the other direction. Finland pays for Yle from the state budget, and its neighbours have also replaced the licence fee with funding through taxation. A direct grant, properly protected, is the modern way to pay for public media.

Direct funding, with independence guaranteed

The argument that government money means government control does not survive a look at our own Constitution. The Supreme Court, the Election Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General are all paid for by the government, and no one says they must therefore serve it. What protects their independence is not where the money comes from but whether anyone can switch it off.

That is where Prasar Bharati is exposed today. The Supreme Court’s administrative expenses are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India under Article 146(3) of the Constitution, so they are not put to a vote every year. Prasar Bharati’s grant, by contrast, is voted annually as part of the I&B Ministry’s demand. In 2018 funds were held back from January and Rs 365 crore was released only after Prasar Bharati signed a memorandum of understanding with the Ministry at the end of March; the Ministry said the General Financial Rules required one.

The European Media Freedom Act shows how this risk is closed: funding set in advance, on transparent and objective criteria, adequate to the mission, and preferably fixed for several years. Germany adds an independent expert commission to assess what its public broadcasters need. Australia fixes the funding for five years at a time. Direct funding with these safeguards is the strongest guarantee of independence, far stronger than dependence on advertisers or on the goodwill of a ministry.

Our demand

Friends of Prasar Bharati calls on the Government of India and Parliament to fund Akashvani and Doordarshan directly and completely, and to protect that funding by law.

Pay the full cost of public service. The Union government should meet the entire cost of Akashvani and Doordarshan’s public service: the salaries of all staff, including those recruited after 2007, all operating costs, and capital investment. Commercial income should be a supplement, never the condition of survival.
Fix the funding in law, five years at a time. Parliament should amend the Prasar Bharati Act so that funding is set for five years in advance on transparent, published criteria, as the European Media Freedom Act requires of European states and as Australia already practises.
Put it beyond annual pressure. The grant should be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, like the expenses of the Supreme Court, or paid into a statutory fund the Ministry cannot withhold.
Let an independent body assess the need. An expert commission, reporting to Parliament, should assess what Akashvani and Doordarshan need to fulfil Section 12, as Germany’s commission does for its broadcasters.
Settle the old dues within government. Spectrum and space-segment charges owed by Prasar Bharati to other arms of government should be settled or waived, as they were in 2012, rather than paid out of money another arm of government provides.
Fund the next stage of the network. A successor to the Broadcasting Infrastructure and Network Development scheme should keep transmitters, studios, DD FreeDish and the archives modern as Indian broadcasting approaches its centenary on 23 July 2027.
Keep core services free to all. Akashvani, Doordarshan and DD FreeDish must remain free to every citizen, wherever they live and whatever they can afford.
Answer to the public. In return, Prasar Bharati should publish a yearly public value report to Parliament on reach, languages, programming hours, trust and cost, so that citizens can see what their money buys.

Answering the objections

“India cannot afford it.”

The Budget for 2026-27 gives Prasar Bharati Rs 2,291.88 crore. Spread over about 146 crore people, that is under Rs 16 per person for a whole year, and under Rs 20 even with the Rs 509.24 crore for new infrastructure. A British household pays £180 a year for the BBC, a Swiss household 335 francs, a German household €220. Doubling Prasar Bharati’s grant would cost each Indian about Rs 16 more a year, roughly the price of a cup of tea.

“Government money means government control.”

It need not, if the money is fixed by law, assessed independently and released automatically, as our demand sets out. We share the concern the European Broadcasting Union raised about the Czech plan: a move to state-budget funding without safeguards could expose a broadcaster to pressure. That is why we ask for direct funding and legal protection together. The 2018 episode shows the danger of the present arrangement, not of direct funding.

“Let it earn its own way.”

It has tried, and the figures above show the result: falling advertising, a falling grant, and growing dependence on renting space to private channels. News in tribal languages and dialects, farm broadcasts, transmitters in border areas and programmes for remote communities have no market. Commercial broadcasters exist to serve the market; the public broadcaster exists to serve everyone else.

“A mix of funding sources is healthier.”

The Expert Committee on Prasar Bharati chaired by Sam Pitroda recommended in 2014 a mix of government funding, private investment and internal resources. In the years since, the advertising part of that mix has shrunk: the commercial revenue of Akashvani and Doordarshan fell from Rs 1,284.66 crore in 2011-12 to Rs 479.47 crore in 2024-25, though the two years count revenue slightly differently. Commercial income can still help, but it cannot be the foundation.

“Full funding will breed inefficiency.”

Accountability, not hunger, drives good performance. A five-year funding settlement assessed by an independent body, with a yearly public value report to Parliament, will demand more of Prasar Bharati than the annual scramble for advertising ever has.

Conclusion

Whether Akashvani and Doordarshan are run by Prasar Bharati or directly by the government, direct and complete funding by the government is the precondition for them to work as a true public service broadcaster and national broadcaster for the world’s largest democracy.

The world is drawing the same lesson. Europe has written adequate, predictable funding into law. Switzerland’s voters refused to cut their broadcaster’s money. The United States has shown what happens when public media is left to the politics of the year: its funding body no longer exists.

India should choose the first path. Fund Akashvani and Doordarshan fully. Fund them directly. Fix that funding in law, so that the broadcaster that belongs to every citizen answers to every citizen, and to no advertiser and no ministry.

As Indian broadcasting approaches its hundredth year, there could be no better gift to the nation. Request your Member of Parliament to demand full and direct funding for Akashvani and Doordarshan. Let us make Prasar Bharati financially viable to serve its real objectives.