Government’s Proposed IT Rule Amendments Face Industry Pushback Amid Rising Takedown Concerns

The ministry had published the draft rules on March 30, allowing 15 days for public and stakeholder feedback, with April 14 set as the deadline. A senior official said MeitY had received around 70–100 responses and was likely to extend the deadline by two weeks.

The consultations unfolded against growing concern over a recent surge in content takedowns, including actions targeting satirical accounts. The blocking of X handles such as @Nehr_who and @DrNimoYadav under Section 69A in March drew particular attention after the Delhi High Court ordered the restoration of the former while permitting specific posts to remain withheld pending review.

IT secretary S Krishnan, addressing a media briefing on Tuesday, sought to allay concerns, stating that the amendments do not grant wider powers and are “only clarificatory and incidental in nature.” He acknowledged the rise in takedowns in recent months, attributing it partly to a “sudden explosion” of deepfakes, along with misleading financial content and impersonation.

Krishnan also challenged the notion that social media platforms function as neutral carriers of public expression. He said he did not see why social media should be treated as the primary vehicle of freedom of speech, noting that platforms operate with commercial motivations.

The first consultation saw participation from Meta, Google, YouTube, Snap, ShareChat, IAMAI, and NASSCOM. According to people aware of the discussions, companies raised concerns over proposed Rule 3(4), which would make government advisories binding on intermediaries. They warned that non-compliance could result in the loss of safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act and sought clarity on whether such directions would be issued after prior consultation with industry stakeholders.

Krishnan said the provision was intended to remove ambiguity, as many platforms were unclear whether government advisories were optional or binding. He explained that Rule 3(4) clarifies due diligence requirements under Section 79(2)(c), which links safe harbour protection to adherence to due diligence and government guidelines. He added that the government is considering compiling all advisories into a public repository.

Intermediaries also questioned their inclusion under Part III of the rules, which governs digital media and is administered by the ministry of information and broadcasting (MIB). The government said the move is intended to bring all news and current affairs content, including user-generated material, under a unified regulatory framework managed by a single ministry. Krishnan noted that with a growing volume of news being created by users, it was necessary to designate one entity to oversee all such content. Officials indicated that intermediaries were included because they act as access points to this content and can assist in identifying users.

Krishnan acknowledged the need to clearly distinguish between different categories of actors, including intermediaries, registered publishers, and users, stating that some differentiation needs to be mandated. On the expansion of the inter-departmental committee, which can now take up matters beyond complaints, he said industry concerns would be examined.

The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), which participated in the consultation, reiterated its demand for the withdrawal of the draft rules, arguing that the changes could have a “censorial impact” and do not comply with established consultation norms.

Digital policy commentator Nikhil Pahwa described the amendments as part of a “cumulative censorship framework,” highlighting concerns over the lack of accountability in blocking orders and the increasing use of emergency-style takedowns.

The government said it would review all feedback before finalising the rules. “The ministry is open-minded,” Krishnan said, signalling that further deliberations could shape the final framework amid mounting scrutiny from industry and civil society.