SFLC.in is concerned about the Advisory issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on 8th October 2026 directing social media intermediaries to exercise enhanced diligence in addressing allegedly false, misleading, manipulated or out-of-context content that may affect public order. Concerningly, the Advisory has not been made public, but text of the same has been posted by Medianama. While addressing misinformation is a legitimate objective, the Advisory’s broad and ambiguous language, and increasingly stringent compliance framework, risks encouraging platforms to over-censor lawful speech to protect their safe harbour protections under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Advisory comes at a time where protests and public demonstrations are taking place across the country and an unprecedented number of content takedowns are being recorded on a daily basis. Introducing further compliance requirements at this crucial time compels platforms to throttle lawful expression of dissent and criticism.
The Advisory, which is non-binding in nature, compels social media intermediaries to exercise ‘enhanced due diligence’, an undefined objective. While the Advisory is “issued with the approval of the competent authority in MeitY”, advisories 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 Advisory appears to operate beyond the bounds of permitted delegated legislation. The IT Rules, 2021, already mandate that intermediaries exercise due diligence under Rule 3, with significant social media intermediaries also having to undertake ‘additional due diligence’ measures. The Advisory is also not time-bound in nature, and would create an additional layer of censorship, adding to the already prevalent atmosphere of rampant content takedowns and account suspensions.
Clause 4 (ii) of the Advisory states that intermediaries are to “accord priority to reports/complaints received from authorised Government agencies regarding content having potential implications for public order, and take appropriate action in accordance with applicable law”
However, authorised Government agencies are not defined here. Rule 3(1)(d) identifies certain categories of Officers (Joint Secretary rank officers and police officials not below Deputy Inspector General of Police / DIG rank) who can send orders to intermediaries to take down content. The Advisory is silent on whether it will be these identified Officers, or a separate class of authorised agencies who can also additionally send takedown requests, essentially creating a system of takedowns parallel to the already operating Sahyog Portal.
Clause 4 (iii) mandates that intermediaries are to “undertake appropriate measures to identify and appropriately label/contextualise manipulated, synthetically generated or misleading content, particularly where such content is presented as depicting a current event;”
This effectively makes intermediaries the arbiters of truth, especially in the case of ‘misleading’ content. This Clause also creates a regulatory straitjacket that compels intermediaries to both over-monitor and censor the content published on the platform and incentivises intermediaries to reduce any potential liability that could be incurred in case of a lapse. This may result in pre-censorship of content that could ‘possibly’ be manipulated, synthetically-generated, or misleading- but cannot be verified as such, considering the technical infeasibility of error-proof verification of synthetically generated information. These measures could violate fundamental rights to free speech and expression.
The Advisory also asks platforms to prioritise complaints from authorised government agencies but does not provide users with any meaningful redressal mechanism against wrongful takedowns. Through our Free Speech Tracker we have documented instances of how the government stretches the term “unlawful activity” to any content that is unfavorable to them and provides no meaningful remedy to challenge such opaque takedown orders. In this context, additional government-led content moderation requirements risk becoming another mechanism for suppressing dissent. Any mechanism for prioritising government complaints must be accompanied by clear eligibility criteria, transparency, accountability and effective remedies for affected users.
Further the Advisory’s focus on old or archived photographs and videos is also problematic as archived material is quite often used to establish context and to identify patterns of restrictions and violations especially during times of unrest. Similarly, satire, parody and humorous impersonations of public officials are also common forms of political expression, particularly used during protests. Without clear standards for distinguishing misleading content from legitimate expression, these provisions risk penalising lawful expression and political criticism. It is also highly likely for platforms to err on the side of removal. The pressure to comply with these requirements may also compel platforms to deploy and increasingly rely on automated systems and other technological solutions on an urgent basis without adequate testing and without accounting for transparency or human oversight.
SFLC.in thus urges MeitY to clarify the legal basis and scope of the Advisory and to ensure that it does not introduce obligations beyond existing laws. SFLC also urges MeitY to ensure that prevention of misinformation must not become a tool for unchecked content moderation and neither should it undermine constitutional protections for freedom of speech and expression.
Read our statement here:
