Two industry bodies representing companies like Google, Meta and other social media intermediaries have opposed all amendments proposed by the Center to the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021, arguing that the changes will 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.
On April 21, the Ministry issued a second extension for stakeholder comments. In the same notice, MeitY also proposed an additional amendment that would require AI-generated content to carry labels that remain continuously visible for 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 guidelines, directions, standard operating procedures and codes of practice part of intermediaries’ due diligence obligations under Section 79 of the IT Act. Section 79 provides “safe harbour” protection for intermediaries, protecting platforms from liability for third-party content hosted on their services.
IAMAI argued that the proposal would effectively turn advice and similar executive instructions into legally binding commitments without parliamentary support. She said the amendment could expand the intermediary’s liability beyond what is permitted by the Information Technology Law.
Likewise, the IMF argued that the proposal would transform “soft law” instruments into enforceable obligations linked to safe harbor protections without the procedural safeguards associated with formal rule-making. It also warned that ever-changing advice could lead to shifting compliance expectations and uncertainty for businesses.
Both organizations cited the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, which stated that intermediate removal obligations should only arise through court orders or statutory government notifications. The IAMAI recommended that Rule 3(4) be withdrawn entirely, while the BIF suggested that only rules formally notified under Section 87 of the IT Act should create binding obligations. The two organizations also opposed amendments expanding the scope of Part Three of the IT Rules, which govern digital news publishers and OTT platforms.
The proposed Rule 8(1) would extend certain provisions of the Rules to intermediaries and users who share news and current affairs content, making user-generated content on social media platforms subject to the blocking and adjudication framework of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), including the jurisdiction of the Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC).
