Recently, on March 30, 2026, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology [“MeitY”] proposed Amendments to the Information Technology [Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code] Rules, 2021 [“IT Rules” or “2021 Rules”] in the form of the Information Technology [Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code] Rules, 2021 “Amendments”. These have been opened for feedback from relevant stakeholders, with the deadline set at April 14, 2026. However, post representations from multiple stakeholders, the deadline has now been pushed to April 29, 2026.
According to MeitY, the Amendments “aim at strengthening compliance with the clarifications, advisories and directions issued by the Ministry under Part II, and to enhance the efficacy of regulatory oversight of content regulation mechanisms under Part III [Code of Ethics relating to Digital Media] of the IT Rules, 2021”.
While presented as “clarificatory and procedural” updates to creator due diligence and ethics frameworks, they have also come under scrutiny for expanding the regulatory oversight to include all news and current affairs content. Critics also highlight a significant shift in enforcement, as previously non-binding clarifications, advisories, and directions are now being made mandatory.
These proposed Amendments aim to fundamentally expand the regulatory scope of the Rules and the Information Technology Act, 2000 [“IT Act”]. They propose to bring individual users who share “news and current affairs content” [often referred to as news influencers] under the same regulatory framework as established digital news publishers. It is interesting to note that these Amendments have directly built upon the February 2026 Amendments to the IT Rules related to Synthetically Generated Information.
CHANGES PROPOSED
Five principal Amendments have been proposed in the draft notification: in Part II [Intermediary due diligence] and Part III [Code of Ethics concerning Digital Media] of the IT Rules, 2021.
A. Amendment to Rule 3[1][g] and Rule 3[1][h] - Data Retention Obligations
Rule 3[1][g] and Rule 3[1][h] of the IT Rules require Intermediaries to retain specified user data and records for specified durations. As per the proposed Amendments, however, these Rules will now be subject to the insertion of clarifying language, stating these retention obligations are to be taken “without prejudice to the retention requirements under any other law.”
That is to say, if a different law mandates the retention or deletion of data, both rules will have to be applied, and they do not overrule each other. This essentially clarifies the relationship between these two laws but does not provide for additional obligations.
B. Insertion of a new Rule 3[4] - Binding effect of MeitY instruments
The most significant amendment in Part II concerns the addition of a new rule, to be inserted as Rule 3[4]. The Rule obligates intermediaries to comply with and implement any “clarification, advisory, order or direction, standard operating procedure [SOP], code of practice, or guideline” issued by MeitY. This also means that the compliance with such instruments would become a condition for retaining safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act.
Under the proposed Rule 3[4], however, it will be possible for an intermediary to lose its safe harbour by not following an advisory which does not possess statutory backing on its own accord. Draft Rule 3[4][b] requires such an instrument to be written, mention its statutory basis, specify its scope and be consistent with the IT Act and Rules. Notably, no provision requires the instrument to be public or subject to parliamentary scrutiny like rules framed under Section 87 of the IT Act.
C. Amendment to proviso to Rule 8[1] - extending Part III to Non-Publisher Users
The proposed amendment of Rule 8[1] seeks to drastically widen the applicability of Part III. The Rule states that Rules 14 [Inter-Departmental Committee], 15 [Blocking Mechanism] and 16 [Emergency Blocking] shall apply to intermediaries as well as all news and current affairs content published, hosted, uploaded, and so forth, on intermediary platforms by individual users who are not publishers alike.
Part III so far only applies to registered publishers. However, the proposed Amendments broaden its scope to apply the whole regime to news and current affairs content provided by ordinary users.
D. Amendment to Rule 14[2] - Expand the Scope of IDC
Rule 14 creates the Inter-Departmental Committee [“IDC”] that recommends actions on content under the Code of Ethics. The scope of IDC is extended under new rule 14[2], enabling it to consider “matters” and not just “complaints”. That is to say, the new rule empowers the State to refer issues to the committee on its own initiative, thereby broadening its scope from mere complaints. This, in turn, implies that the affected parties are not mandatorily afforded a chance to be heard before such a referral.
E. Amendment to Rule 14[5] - Language and Terminology
Rule 14[5] seeks to substitute the words “complaints or grievances” with the more comprehensive phrase “the matter”, thereby ensuring that the existing provision regarding recommendation making is consistent with the expanded scope of IDC in rule 14[2].
ANALYSIS
Although MeitY positions these Amendments as mere procedural tidying, the impact on intermediary entities, digital news providers, content creators and ordinary users can be significant.
I. DUE DILIGENCE, ACCOUNTABILITY AND SAFE-HARBOR
This represents perhaps the most consequential shift within the proposed framework. Under the current regulatory landscape, while the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting [“MIB”] possesses the authority to issue directions and guidance to digital platforms, there is no explicit statutory link rendering compliance a prerequisite for maintaining safe harbour immunity.
The introduction of Rule 3[4] fundamentally alters this dynamic by effectively bypassing traditional legislative oversight. Advisories, SOPs and directions issued by MeitY lack statutory authority, i.e., they have not been framed under the rule-making power under Section 87 IT Act, nor have they been placed before the Parliament for approval.
The proposed Amendment would elevate these administrative instruments to a binding legal status, granting them compulsory status without the necessity of legislative consent or public debate.
Furthermore, the draft provision contains no requirement for MeitY to disclose or publicise these orders and directions. This lack of transparency creates a precarious environment where an intermediary could inadvertently forfeit its safe harbour protections by failing to comply with directives it was never formally made aware of or permitted to examine.
II. EXTENDED REGULATORY SCOPE
The substitution in proviso to Rule 8[1] implies extending the government’s content regulation framework to ordinary users creating and uploading content that is categorised as “news and current affairs” on intermediary platforms. The existing Code of Ethics was enacted for registered entities and not for individuals, and this disparity will be highly problematic. The distinction between a registered publisher and an ordinary user was a significant aspect of intermediary law, and this new rule is set to merge both under similar government control, resulting in adverse effects on freedom of speech and expression by the users.
Furthermore, extending Part III oversight to user-generated news and current affairs significantly through Rule 14 broadens the jurisdiction of the MIB and IDC. Rule 14[2] is substituted to require the IDC to hear “matters” instead of “complaints”. This amendment does not require a complaint and can simply be initiated based on a notice from the Ministry. By allowing the IDC to consider “matters” suo motu, the amendment enhances executive control over content regulation.
III. AMBIGUITY
The proposed modifications to Rules 3[1][g] and 3[1][h] threaten to undermine the fundamental privacy protections established by other laws, the most prominent of which is the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 [“DPDPA”]. Section 8[7] of the DPDPA explicitly grants users the right to demand the permanent deletion of their personal information once consent is revoked, but “without prejudice to the retention requirements under any other law”. In light of this, considering the proposed 180-day mandatory retention period, ambiguity is caused when the various other laws [especially conflicting provisions] are considered. All the more concerning is their possible impact on individual privacy.
Similarly, when the expansive definition of “news” is considered, Rule 8[1]’s extension of including all “news and current affairs content…by users who are not publishers” could encompass everything from influencer posts to citizen journalism.
While intended to curb misinformation, this provision raises concerns regarding potential censorship, the feasibility of large-scale content categorisation, and the legality of imposing publisher-level liabilities on individual users.
The proposed framework appears to contravene established constitutional safeguards regarding free speech and platform liability. Under Article 19[1][a] of the Constitution, any restriction on digital expression must satisfy the test of proportionality, ensuring that the State interference is the least restrictive means possible to achieve a legitimate aim. By mandating broad compliance with non-statutory advisories, the government risks imposing an overbroad regulatory burden that lacks the necessary precision to protect fundamental rights.
The proposed Amendments to the 2021 Rules for individual news influencers and the proposal for binding ministerial advisories raise fundamental questions about the future of free expression in India. At best, this shift risks triggering systemic over-censorship. At worst, it grants draconian powers and disproportionate authority over digital discourse to the State.
As intermediaries and users navigate these new Amendments, they must balance the technical demands of compliance with the ethical obligation to protect the privacy and digital rights of their users.
