On 30th March, 2026, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”) released the IT Rules (Second Draft Amendments), 2026 (“Draft Amendments”), which amend the he Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021(“IT Rules”). While purportedly issued to strengthen compliance, it is likely to introduce sweeping changes that could diminish the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and undermine established legal frameworks.
We urge the Ministry to withdraw these Draft Amendments in their entirety. Below are our detailed, rule-wise objections.
Rule-Wise Comments
Rules 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(h): Due diligence by an intermediary
Proposed Rule: The amended rules now state that data retention requirements under the IT Rules are without prejudice to any other data retention obligations, such as under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA).
Key Concerns:
The Draft Amendment could have a diluting effect on the rights of users under the DPDPA, including the Right to Erasure, as the IT Rules require user data to be preserved for at least 180 days (extendable) after purpose limitation has been served, regardless of whether consent exists for the same. No legal object has been mentioned for such a data retention mandate on intermediaries. This retention period of 6 months is in itself excessive, and goes against the principle of purpose limitation. The Rule provides an avenue for data retention even beyond this timeline, as they operate in addition to any other requirements for data retention.
SFLC.in’s Recommendations: This amendment must be entirely withdrawn from these rules. Data retention must be for specific purposes, the reasons for which must be communicated to users clearly.
Rule 3(3)(a)(ii): Due diligence in relation to synthetically generated information
Proposed Rule: This amendment substitutes the requirement that visual labels for Synthetically Generated Information (SGI) have “prominent visibility” with the requirement of a “continuous and clearly visible display of such labels throughout the duration of the content.”
Key Concerns:
As we had discussed in our initial statement on the SGI Rules, 2026 the technological feasibility of having permanent labelling which cannot be suppressed is up for debate. Watermarks can be digitally removed, labeling and metadata embedding can be circumvented through actions such as screenshotting. This infeasibility had been brought to light before the Committee constituted on the issue of Deepfakes by Meta, during the Stakeholder Discussions (Appendix II). Without adequate technological backing, it is likely that ‘permanent’ metadata might not be so.
SFLC.in’s Recommendations: The Draft Amendments must provide the specific standards for watermarking and labelling, in line with globally recognized standards like C2PA for verifying content authenticity.
Rule 3(4): Compliance with Clarifications, Advisories and Directions issued by the Ministry
Proposed Rule: A new clause inserted states that intermediaries are to comply with and give effect to any clarification, advisory, order, direction, standard operating procedure, code of practice or guideline issued by the Ministry in relation to Part II of the IT Rules. The standards set are that they must be issued in writing; clearly specify the legal basis under which they are issued; specify the scope, applicability and compliance requirements of the intermediaries to whom it will apply; and be consistent with the provisions of the Act and Rules. Importantly, compliance with the same is stated to form part of the due diligence obligations of the intermediary under section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. Multiple problems arise from this rule.
Key Concerns:
Firstly, clarifications, advisories, SoPs, and guidelines are non-binding in nature and do not form part of “law” under Article 19(2) of the Constitution as they lack statutory force, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors vs State Of Kerala. By mandating compliance with non-binding executive directions, the Draft Amendments appear to operate beyond the bounds of permitted delegated legislation. Section 87(3) of the IT Act, 2000 requires that all rules be laid before Parliament, ensuring legislative oversight. The Draft Amendments could bypass this safeguard, thereby being ultra vires the parent Act and arbitrary. Advisories such as the one on AI Models, LLMs, and Gen AI could be binding, if issued after the Rules come into force, and become part of the corpus of mandatory legal obligations to be followed by intermediaries, despite being an executive instrument that did not receive assent from Parliament, effectively giving MeitY legislative powers.
Secondly, Rule 3(4) could result in a “censorship by proxy” effect on free speech rights of users. As held by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, Section 79 is a statutory protection offered to intermediaries, not a conditional privilege that can be withdrawn by executive discretion. If platforms are compelled to obey every executive direction issued at the threat of open-ended liability for user generated content, they will rationally prioritise risk avoidance and compliance, which could result in over-monitoring and preventive, over-censorship. Combined with the reduced compliance timeline of 3 hours under the SGI Rules, 2026, such decisions could also become effectively automatic as there is little time to assess whether a complaint is made in good faith, whether the content meets legal thresholds, or whether there are competing considerations such as public interest. To reduce the risk of losing safe harbour and facing civil and criminal liability, platforms could, without meaningful review, remove and censor lawful speech, particularly those that are critical of the government or related interests. In a country like India where press freedom and free speech rights face systematic erosion, such a rule could be used to silence critical voices and takedown lawful content, a pattern we already observe under existing rules. The result is likely to be a chilling effect on digital expression and the shrinking of available spaces for democratic participation.
Thirdly, the rule requires that such executive actions must be issued in writing with the scope, applicability, compliance requirements, and legal basis specified. However, there is no requirement for public consultation or notice. Some of the most controversial directions issued recently, like Sanchar Saathi pre-installation and the SIM-binding directive, were done so without any public consultation or notice. These directions were directly communicated to platforms by the Department of Telecommunications, and citizens were made aware of their ill-effects only due to diligent reporting and concerned content creators. These very same public accountability mechanisms are now sought to be regulated and controlled by MeitY through the Draft Amendments. If these rules come into force, secret directions like these could become the new normal, and ordinary citizens would not have any information on what rules govern their digital lives, and would not be able to seek judicial remedies to protect these rights.
Fourthly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, had read ‘actual knowledge’ to mean knowledge of a court order or government notification. In the Draft Amendments, the wording of Rule 3(4) mentions clarifications, advisories, orders, directions, standard operating procedures, codes of practice or guidelines issued by the Ministry, but makes no mention of either a Court order or a government notification,which are the bar for intermediaries to presume actual knowledge. By lowering the judicial standard prescribed, the Amendments increase the burden on intermediaries, leading to a collateral rise in the chilling effect on free speech online.
SFLC.in’s Recommendations: This amendment must be entirely withdrawn from these rules. The statutory framework under the IT Rules for passing delegated legislation must be followed, and judicial pronouncements such as Shreya Singhal must be adhered to.
Rule 8(1): Application of Part III
Proposed Rule: The amendment now includes a newly-inserted proviso to the Rule that applies Rules 14, 15 and 16 from Part III of the IT Rules to news and current affairs content hosted by intermediaries and even non-publisher users (previously only limited to “online paper, news portal, news aggregator, news agency”).
Key Concerns:
Firstly, the definition of “news and current affairs content” under Rule 2(1)(m), includes “newly received or noteworthy content, including analysis, especially about recent events primarily of socio-political, economic or cultural nature, made available over the internet or computer network.” This definition, if applied to non-publisher users, could result in virtually all public interest commentary being regulated. Under this rule, each and every person who disseminates content on news and current affairs, expresses their opinions on recent developments (be it political events, election coverage, policy updates, or local and regional public interest issues), and even those that provide eyewitness accounts of sensitive incidents like communal riots could face an increased threat of content removal under Rules 15 and 16 and systematic clampdown on their free speech rights.
Furthermore, Rule 8(1) is likely to operate in addition to existing blocking mechanisms under Section 69A and through the Sahyog Portal, and could exponentially widen the already arbitrary content takedown architecture. Enforcement of takedowns through advisories and guidelines can also shift the window of acceptable speech over time in unpredictable ways. Any expression that may have been clearly acceptable when it was originally posted could later be flagged as unlawful speech and acted upon, creating uncertainty not just about what is allowed, but about how long content remains safe from scrutiny. If in force, the rule could result in a flagrant violation of Article 19 of the Constitution, which is part of the “Golden Triangle,” the bedrock of our Fundamental Rights.
Secondly, Rule 8(1) prima facie appears to be a reiteration of previous attempts to regulate content outside of the permitted procedure and scope. The 2023 Fact Check Unit (“FCU”) Amendments required intermediaries to comply with the decisions of the FCU on fake government-related news. The amendments were struck down as “unconstitutional” by the Bombay High Court in 2024, and an appeal is currently pending before the Supreme Court. Similarly, the 2023 Broadcasting Bill attempted to regulate news content creators, including OTT platforms, under a strict regulatory framework, but concerted efforts from activists, civil society and the broader public resulted in its quiet withdrawal. Rule 8(1) could be the latest attempt at institutionalizing executive control over digital discourse, in a manner that may bypass judicial rulings and public opposition that obstructed previous efforts.
Thirdly, these Draft Amendments raise concerns around how misinformation will be dealt with, especially given the lack of clear safeguards. While tackling false or misleading content is a legitimate aim, the current framework places the burden on intermediaries to act quickly or risk liability under Rules 15 and 16. In practice, this is likely to push platforms towards over-removal of content, even where the legality or accuracy of the content is unclear. This approach could result in censorship by proxy that can suppress lawful speech. Under the proposed amendments, even user-driven fact-checking tools like the Community Notes feature on X could be brought under government oversight when they deal with news or public policy content, which is usually the case. Such tools allow users themselves to add context to potentially misleading posts, and only notes rated as helpful by a diverse set of users are shown publicly, with the platform having historically taken a limited role in moderating them.
Fourthly, the language of Rule 8(1) remains vague in its scope and could create significant compliance burdens, particularly for smaller platforms. The broad definition of “news and current affairs content,” combined with the extension of Part III obligations, could make it difficult for intermediaries to clearly determine what content falls within the regulatory ambit. This uncertainty is likely to increase regulatory costs substantially as intermediaries may be required to implement automated monitoring systems, legal review processes, and rapid response mechanisms to avoid liability. While larger platforms may be able to absorb these costs, smaller platforms and startups are far less equipped to do so. This could force some to scale back operations or exit the market altogether. At the same time, larger platforms are also more likely to adopt strict compliance, including proactive content takedowns. Instances of the same are already emerging, with Meta introducing features to ‘automatically block flagged content at scale’. Recent Amendments when read together therefore point to a situation where automated moderation, immediate takedown, and no human-in-the-loop review become the norm. This could create a censorship regime which could not only stifle free speech, but could also result in users having to subject themselves to quasi-judicial and judicial proceedings to merely maintain access to a platform of communication.
SFLC.in’s Recommendations: This amendment must be entirely withdrawn from these rules. Section 69A of the IT Act already provides for a mechanism to takedown content subject to checks and balances. The same is sufficient and proportional to the requirements of blocking unlawful speech. Any new addition to the blocking regime must meet the threshold of the proportionality test laid out in Justice KS Puttaswamy v Union of India, which the Draft Amendments fall short of.
Rules 14(2) and 14(5): Inter-Departmental Committee
Proposed Rule: These amendments now expand the scope of the Inter-Departmental Committee (“IDC”) to consider “matters” beyond complaints, including those referred by MeitY.
Key Concerns:
This broadening of scope is extremely problematic as it could bypass the judicial process, as there are multiple challenges to Part III of the IT Rules pending before the Delhi High Court. To include not only grievances and complaints, but also the broad ambit of “matters” including user generated news and current affairs content is a way to circumvent such proceedings. Through the widening of the IDC’s jurisdiction, these Draft Amendments could undermine the three-tier regulatory regime contemplated under Part III, and flatten it into a single executive-driven process, where MeitY can refer any “matter” to the IDC behind closed doors without there needing to be any escalation through the self-regulatory mechanism.
SFLC.in’s Recommendations: The amendment must be entirely withdrawn from the Rules. Section 69A of the IT Act already provides for a mechanism to takedown content subject to checks and balances. The same is sufficient and proportional to the requirements of blocking unlawful speech. Any new addition to the blocking regime, including through the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting or through the IDC must meet the threshold of the proportionality test laid out in Justice KS Puttaswamy v Union of India, which the Draft Amendments fall short of. Furthermore, the IDC functions as an appellate body for a self regulating mechanism and expanding its jurisdiction to make it the forum of first instance in case of “matters” could undermine its appellate powers.
In conclusion, these Draft Amendments subvert existing procedures and constitutional safeguards through opaque, arbitrary, and unchecked delegated legislation that undermines the fundamental rights of people, treating users as regulatory subjects instead of rights-bearing citizens. If the Draft Amendments come into force, it could result in opaque and arbitrary executive actions that are not communicated to the public, unprecedented amounts of digital censorship of critical voices on online platforms, and an oppressive chilling effect that stifles the free speech of citizens online.
We urge the Ministry to withdraw the Draft Amendments.
