IT rules amendments face pushback; govt may extend feedback deadline

Industry and digital rights groups flag censorship risks as MeitY considers extending feedback deadline on draft IT rules till late April

Proposed amendments to India’s information technology rules, which would extend government oversight to user-generated news content on social media and make ministry advisories legally binding on platforms, faced pushback from industry and digital rights groups at consultations held by the ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY) on Tuesday — as the government signalled it may extend the public feedback window.

The ministry had published the draft rules on March 30, giving 15 days for public and stakeholder feedback, with April 14 set as the deadline.

The ministry had published the draft rules on March 30, giving 15 days for public and stakeholder feedback, with April 14 set as the deadline. A senior official told HT that MeitY had received around 70–100 responses and was likely to extend the deadline by two weeks.

The consultations came amid growing concern over a recent surge in content takedowns, including actions targeting satirical accounts. The blocking of X handles such as @Nehr_who and @DrNimoYadav under Section 69A in March drew particular attention after the Delhi High Court ordered the restoration of the former, while allowing specific posts to remain withheld pending review.

IT secretary S Krishnan, speaking at a media briefing on Tuesday, sought to allay concerns. “These amendments do not in any way give us wider powers… they are only clarificatory and incidental in nature,” he said. Krishnan acknowledged that takedowns had increased in recent months, attributing the rise partly to a “sudden explosion” of deepfakes, as well as misleading financial content and impersonation.

He also questioned the premise that social media platforms were neutral carriers of public expression. “I don’t see why we are using social media as the vehicle of freedom of speech… they are doing a lot of things for commercial reasons,” he said.

The first consultation saw participation from Meta, Google, YouTube, Snap, ShareChat, IAMAI, and NASSCOM. People aware of the discussions told HT that companies raised concerns over proposed Rule 3(4), which makes government advisories binding on intermediaries. Non-compliance, they flagged, could strip platforms of safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act. Companies sought clarity on whether such directions would be issued after prior consultation with industry.

Krishnan said the provision was meant to remove ambiguity: many platforms had been unclear about whether government advisories were optional or binding. Rule 3(4), he said, simply clarified due diligence requirements under Section 79(2)(c), which conditions safe harbour on following due diligence and government guidelines. He added that the government was considering compiling all advisories into a public repository.

Intermediaries also questioned their inclusion under Part III of the rules, which governs digital media and is administered by the ministry of information and broadcasting (MIB). The government said the change was aimed at bringing all news and current affairs content — including user-generated material — under a single regulatory framework and one ministry. “Today, a lot more news is done by users… it was felt that there should be one entity which handles all news and current affairs content,” Krishnan said. Officials indicated that intermediaries were being drawn into the framework because they serve as the access point to such content and can help identify users.

Krishnan acknowledged the need for clearer distinctions between categories of actors. “There were three distinct players… some distinction needs to be mandated,” he said, referring to intermediaries, registered publishers and users. On the expansion of the inter-departmental committee, which can now take up matters beyond complaints, he said industry concerns would be examined.

The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), which attended the consultation, renewed its call for the withdrawal of the draft rules, arguing the changes could have a “censorial impact” and did not adhere to established consultation norms.

Digital policy commentator Nikhil Pahwa described the amendments as part of a “cumulative censorship framework,” flagging the lack of accountability in blocking orders and the growing use of emergency-style takedowns.

The government said it would review all feedback before finalising the rules. “The ministry is open-minded,” Krishnan said.