The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (the “Ministry“) has, through its recent draft amendments issued in March and April 2026 (“Draft Amendments“) to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“IT Rules“), proposed a series of changes aimed at strengthening intermediary compliance and expanding oversight over digital media content. The Draft Amendments, expand the scope of applicability and carry implications for platforms, publishers, and users, with regards to content moderation, compliance obligations, and government oversight.
A shift from Safe Harbour to Accountability
Since their introduction, the IT Rules have aimed to give effect to the due diligence requirements under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act“), which provides intermediaries with conditional safe harbour from liability for third‑party content. In the evolving framework, however, the regulatory focus has shifted away from immunity, towards accountability.
The Draft Amendments further strengthen the Ministry’s power to issue binding directions to intermediaries.
Formalising Compliance with Government Directions
The Draft Amendments propose to introduce Rule 3(4), which would mandate intermediaries to comply with any clarifications, advisories, orders, directions, standard operating procedures, and guidelines issued by the Ministry. Through the introduction of this provision, any advisory issued by the Ministry would become an enforceable compliance obligation and would be treated as part of an intermediary’s due diligence under the IT Rules and Section 79 of the IT Act. In simpler terms, failure to comply with such directions could jeopardise the safe harbour protection.
In order to ensure that there is no ambiguity in enforceability of the directions issued by the Ministry, the Draft Amendments have issued some procedural safeguards. The Draft Amendments require that such directions be issued in writing, specify their legal basis or statutory provision under which they are issued, and clearly outline their scope and applicability and specify the compliance requirements being mandated. These directions must also be consistent with the provisions of the IT Act and the IT Rules.
Clarifying Data Retention Obligations
Intermediaries operate in a complex compliance environment, navigating overlapping obligations under sectoral laws, criminal procedure, and data protection frameworks. The Draft Amendments, while addressing Rules 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(h), clarify that data retention obligations under the IT Rules operate without prejudice to requirements under other applicable laws. By emphasising that the IT Rules obligations are not exhaustive, the amendment reinforces a layered compliance model. In effect, intermediaries must ensure that their data handling practices align not only with the IT Rules but also with any parallel statutory requirements.
Expanding the Scope of Digital Media Oversight
The Draft Amendments clarify that certain provisions, particularly those relating to oversight mechanisms, extend not only to publishers but also to intermediaries hosting news and current affairs content uploaded by users who are not publishers.
Traditionally, regulatory scrutiny under Part III of the IT Rules has been directed at publishers of news and curated content. By extending its applicability to intermediaries in respect of user-generated news content, the Draft Amendments blur the distinction between an ordinary user and a publisher.
For intermediaries hosting large volumes of user-generated content, this raises important operational and legal questions on how news and current affairs content is to be identified at scale, and to what extent will intermediaries be expected to monitor, classify, or act upon such content.
Reconfiguring the Role of the Inter-Departmental Committee
The Draft Amendments also propose changes to Rule 14, which governs the functioning of the Inter-Departmental Committee (“IDC“). The role of the IDC is proposed to be expanded beyond the adjudication of grievances to include matters referred to it by the Ministry. If enforced, this change will enable the Ministry to directly refer matters to the IDC, even in the absence of a formal complaint. In doing so, it strengthens the Ministry’s ability to initiate review and recommend action in relation to content-related issues.
While the proposed change will enhance regulatory responsiveness, it raises questions regarding procedural safeguards and the scope for discretionary intervention as there is no threshold or criteria defined for such referrals.
Stakeholder Comments and Implementation Challenges
The Ministry has invited stakeholder feedback on the Draft Amendments. This provides an opportunity for industry participants, civil society, and legal experts to engage with the proposed framework and highlight potential concerns. Key issues that are likely to attract objection from relevant stakeholders include the scope and operation of Rule 3(4), the feasibility of regulating user-generated news content with the same level of scrutiny as institutional publishers, and the safeguards surrounding the exercise of executive powers.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of the Draft Amendments will depend on their implementation, and the challenge will lie in striking an appropriate balance between regulatory oversight and stakeholder autonomy.
English
Chinese (Simplified)
Japanese