Proposed amendments to India’s IT rules, which would expand government oversight to include user-generated news content on social media and make the ministry’s advisories legally binding on the platforms, faced opposition from industry and digital rights groups at consultations held by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on Tuesday – with the government signaling it may expand the window for public comments.
The ministry published the draft rules on March 30, giving 15 days to receive public and stakeholder comments, with April 14 set as the deadline. A senior official told HT that MeitY has received around 70 to 100 responses and is likely to extend the deadline by two weeks.
The consultations came amid growing concern about the recent increase in content removals, including actions targeting satirical accounts. The ban of
During a press conference on Tuesday, IT Minister S Krishnan sought to allay fears. He said: “These amendments in no way give us broader powers… They are merely clarifications and incidental in nature.” Krishnan acknowledged that takedowns had increased in recent months, attributing the rise in part to the “sudden explosion” of deepfakes, as well as misleading financial content and impersonation.
He also questioned the assumption that social media platforms were a neutral medium for public expression. “I don’t understand why we use social media as a means of freedom of expression,” he said. “They do a lot of things for commercial reasons.”
The first consultation saw participation from Meta, Google, YouTube, Snap, ShareChat, IAMAI and NASSCOM. People familiar with the discussions told HT that the companies raised concerns about the proposed Rule 3(4), which would make government consultations binding on brokers. They noted that non-compliance could strip platforms of safe harbor protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. The companies requested clarification on whether this guidance would be issued after prior consultation with industry.
Krishnan said this provision aims to remove ambiguity: many platforms were not clear on whether government consultations were optional or mandatory. He said Rule 3(4) simply clarifies the due diligence requirements under section 79(2)(c), which provides a safe harbor for following due diligence and government guidelines. He added that the government is considering collecting all advice in a public repository.
The intermediaries also questioned their inclusion under Part Three of the rules, which govern digital media and are administered by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB). The government said the change aims to bring together all news and current affairs content – including user-generated material – under one regulatory framework and one ministry. “Today, a lot of news is made by users… and there was a feeling that there should be one entity that handles all news and current affairs content,” Krishnan said. Officials noted that moderators were drawn to the framework because they act as an access point to this content and can help identify users.
Krishnan acknowledged the need for a clearer distinction between categories of actors. “There were three distinct players… some distinction had to be made,” he said, referring to intermediaries, registered publishers and users. Regarding the expansion of the interdepartmental committee, which can now take up matters beyond complaints, he said industry concerns would be considered.
The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), which attended the consultation, renewed its call for the draft rules to be withdrawn, arguing that the changes could have a “censorship effect” and do not adhere to established consultation standards.
Digital policy commentator Nikhil Pahwa described the amendments as part of a “cumulative censorship framework,” pointing to a lack of accountability in blocking orders and the increasing use of emergency-style takedowns.
The government said it would review all comments before finalizing the rules. “The ministry is open,” Krishnan said.
