E-Paper
Tech bodies oppose IT Rules amendments
The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) and the Broadband India Forum (BIF) submitted their objections to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on May 7
Prefer HTon Google
Two industry bodies representing companies such as Google, Meta and other social media intermediaries have opposed all of Centre’s proposed amendments to the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021, arguing that the changes would expand government control over online content and create regulatory uncertainty for digital platforms, AI companies and creators.
The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) and the Broadband India Forum (BIF) submitted their objections to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on May 7, the revised deadline for public comments on the draft amendments.
The ministry had on April 21 issued a second extension for stakeholder comments. In the same notice, MeitY also proposed an additional amendment requiring AI-generated content to carry labels that remain continuously visible throughout the duration of the content.
One of the key proposals opposed by both IAMAI and BIF relates to draft Rule 3(4), which seeks to make compliance with government-issued advisories, directions, standard operating procedures and codes of practice part of the due diligence obligations for intermediaries under Section 79 of the IT Act. Section 79 provides ‘safe harbour’ protection to intermediaries, shielding platforms from liability for third-party content hosted on their services.
IAMAI argued that the proposal would effectively convert advisories and similar executive instructions into legally binding obligations without parliamentary backing. It said the amendment could expand intermediary liability beyond what is permitted under the IT Act.
BIF similarly argued that the proposal would turn “soft law” instruments into enforceable obligations linked to safe harbour protections without the procedural safeguards associated with formal rule-making. It also warned that constantly changing advisories could create shifting compliance expectations and uncertainty for businesses.
Both organisations cited the Supreme Court’s 2015 judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, which held that intermediary takedown obligations should arise only through court orders or lawful government notifications. IAMAI recommended that Rule 3(4) be withdrawn entirely, while BIF suggested that only rules formally notified under Section 87 of the IT Act should create binding obligations. The two organisations also opposed amendments expanding the scope of Part III of the IT Rules, which governs digital news publishers and OTT platforms.
The proposed Rule 8(1) would extend certain provisions of the rules to intermediaries and users sharing news and current affairs content, bringing user-generated content on social media platforms under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s (MIB) blocking and adjudication framework, including the jurisdiction of the Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC).
