“By the end of this month, we should be able to notify the final rules,” an anonymous Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) official told The Print, according to its May 22 report, while referring to the March 2026 draft amendments to  IT Rules (2021).

The official also reportedly said:

• The government may not walk back on provisions related to the Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC), which can extend government scrutiny to user-generated news content without waiting for a public complaint.
• MeitY received around 4,000-7,000 email submissions and stated that it reviewed all of them.

The government official did not specify whether MeitY will revoke any of the four proposed amendments when it notifies the final version later this month.

Some pointers from the April 8 closed-room stakeholder meeting and S Krishnan’s press briefing:

• Key issue discussed: The lack of clarity over the distinction between users, intermediaries, and publishers. 
• “Today, with citizen journalism, this is a grey area,” Krishnan said. He further reinforced the draft rules, saying that user-generated content related to “news and current affairs” on social media will also now fall under MIB’s regulatory framework and code of ethics.
• Intermediaries had asked for clarity on whether government advisories constitute binding guidelines, he reportedly said, referring to the draft clause that aims to give legally binding status to government-issued guidelines, SOPs, and advisories.
• The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) had asked for jurisdiction over news and current affairs content, he reportedly said, referring to one of the draft amendments that extends the applicability of the Code of Ethics framework to user-generated content as well.
• Law enforcement agencies had asked for a data preservation provision, he said while addressing the proposal that aims to increase data retention obligations without proper thresholds or guidelines.
• The government may release a single master framework of guidelines clarifying whether advisories and SOPs issued by MeitY will be legally binding or non-binding in nature.

Some important statements from MediaNama’s discussion on IT draft amendments in April 2026: 

On Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC):

• “I was summoned by MIB’s Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) for a thumbnail. The irony is that they didn’t even watch the whole video and summoned me to the hearing for a thumbnail,” said Ambuj Kumar, Editor of Lokhit India, a Delhi-based digital media company. 
• “The terms like ‘matters’ or ‘user’ are not defined. The distinction between a publisher and a user is not defined. What you’ve essentially done is remove the tier-1 and tier-2 processes, and it straight up goes to the IDC. The IDC has the liberty to make arbitrary decisions. In effect, what they’re trying to do is introduce a sweeping provision that gives them discretion to do whatever they deem fit, whether the subject is a publisher, an intermediary, or even a user.” said Alaqshendra Singh, Associate Partner at TMT Law Practice 

On proposed legally binding status to advisories:

• An advisory shouldn’t be part of the IT Rules: “As long as there are conditions which have been stated, that they have to be issued in writing, they must clearly provide the statutory provision in the rule; maybe they should be considered. But in respect of advisory, I have a different opinion because advisory is per se advisory in nature. It cannot be considered part of the rules,” said Rakesh Maheshwari, former MeitY official. 
• Why don’t advisors have legal status: “You can call it whatever you want. If it is to have the binding force of law, it must be issued under 87 in that framework. If it is not issued in that framework, it is advisory,” said Rahil Chatterjee, Principal Associate at Ikigai Law.

Read all the MediaNama’s coverage of the event below: 

• No notice, no explanation, no recourse: how content creators experience censorship in India
• ‘Judge, jury, executioner’: Experts warn of Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) overreach under draft IT Rules
• Can MeitY issue binding rules via advisories? Experts raise alarm over draft IT Rules
• ‘No transparency’: experts warn of expanding powers to block online speech in India
• Shreya Singhal targeted private censorship. Today’s threat is the State
• How 2019 election code of ethics became India’s three-hour content takedown mandate
• How India’s content takedown framework was built and where It has gone wrong

Also read: 

• Draft IT Rules explained: What MeitY’s draft amendments mean for platform liability, content creators, content takedowns and data retention
• MeitY Draft IT Rules meeting leaves key questions from platforms, civil society unresolved
• Your take: How the public is reacting to MeitY’s latest draft amendments to IT rules?