Downloads:-
Amnesty International has called on the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to immediately withdraw the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules, 2026, warning that the proposed changes would “institutionalise sweeping executive control over online expression” and “facilitate arbitrary censorship and mass surveillance”.
1. Censorship extended to ordinary users: A major bone of contention is the proposed changes to Rule 8(1), which, Amnesty says, would intensify the government’s censorship of digital content. Until now, the rules governing the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s digital media ethics code—including its Inter-Departmental Committee and emergency blocking powers—applied only to intermediaries and publishers of news and current affairs. The draft amendments would bring ordinary users posting news content on platforms such as X, YouTube or Facebook within the ambit of the same framework.
Amnesty flagged that the existing definition of “news and current affairs content” under Rule 2(m) is already dangerously overbroad. Further extending the definition to all content based on its context, substance, purpose, import and meaning, the proposed Rules transform it into a “catch-all clause”, effectively bringing all forms of user-generated content under scrutiny.
The human rights body further states that India’s 2026 IT Amendment Rules may be in violation of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which requires that any restriction on freedom of expression must satisfy the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
The organisation also drew attention to Rule 16(2) of the IT Rules 2021, under which an “authorised officer” appointed by the MIB can order emergency blocking of content that falls within the grounds set out in Section 69(A) of the IT Act. The proposed change would mean, the ministry may also order continued blocking of any user-generated content without providing the affected party an opportunity to be heard.
“When read together with increasingly compressed takedown timelines—reportedly reduced to as little as one to three hours—this framework poses a serious risk to the right to freedom of expression. Such restrictions are neither necessary nor proportionate, as they do not represent the least intrusive means of achieving the stated objective and instead incentivise the precautionary removal of lawful speech by platforms to avoid penalties and loss of their safe harbour protection,” Amnesty said.
It further argues that rapid takedown obligations undermine the ability to assess content in its proper context, including the likelihood of harm, as mandated under international human rights standards such as the Rabat Plan of Action. The absence of procedural safeguards, including the right to be heard, further exacerbates these concerns, particularly for ordinary users who may lack the resources to seek timely legal recourse.
2. Lack of independent or judicial oversight: Under the proposed changes to Rule 14, the committee, which until now heard only grievances relating to violation of the Code of Ethics by publishers, can also take up matters “referred to it by the Ministry”. This means MeitY can re-route any content-related matters directly to the committee without requiring a formal complaint by a user or a publisher.
“Allowing the Ministry to initiate scrutiny and removal of content without a complaint raises serious concerns regarding lack of independent oversight, particularly in light of the overbroad and vague definition of ‘news and current affairs’ under the Rules. This approach runs counter to the order of Bombay High Court passed in 2021, which stayed the operations of Rules 9(1) and 9(3) of the IT rules that introduced a three-tier grievance redressal mechanism with government oversight. The Madras High Court subsequently endorsed this position, observing that such a mechanism could ‘rob the media of its independence’,” Amnesty said.
Furthermore, the proposed amendments risk adversely affecting any individual engaging in online public discourse. While the framework’s stated purpose is to curb misinformation, it effectively licenses the committee, a non-judicial authority, to determine what constitutes “fake”, “false”, or “misleading” information.
“Such a framework is likely to result in self-censorship and a chilling effect on legitimate expression. Overall, the amendment enables broad surveillance and filtering of online expression, including lawful speech that may be critical, controversial, or offensive, but nonetheless protected under the right to freedom of expression. It must be withdrawn immediately,” Amnesty said.
3. Compliance directly tied with safe harbour protection: Amnesty also flags concerns over the newly-inserted sub-rule (4) to Rule 3, which deals with due diligence obligations of intermediaries. While Section 79 of the IT Act shields platforms from legal liability for user-generated content, the draft states that platforms “shall comply with and give effect to any clarification, advisory, order, direction, standard operating procedure, code of practice or guideline issued by the ministry, by order in writing”.
Crucially, the draft ties this compliance to safe harbour protection. It states that adherence to such ministerial directions “shall form part of the due diligence obligations of the intermediary under section 79 of the Act”.
Amnesty pointed out that such notifications are administrative and executive measures and do not carry the same legal weight as rules adopted through legislative processes, which are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and public consultation. It also warned that the government may use such directions to achieve outcomes that would otherwise require formal legal orders.
“The draft amendments also do not clarify whether such notifications must be publicly disclosed. This raises concerns about transparency and accessibility. For instance, regulatory proposals such as the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023 were circulated among select stakeholders through closed-door consultations, illustrating how policy processes may lack openness. In such circumstances, intermediaries may be required to comply with directions that are not publicly available, imposing an unreasonable and impractical burden,” Amnesty said.
4. Indefinite data retention: The proposed amendments to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 mandate intermediaries to retain user data for at least 180 days and beyond if required by other laws. Amnesty sees this as a serious threat to the right to privacy, and warns that it may enable mass and unlawful surveillance.
“The spirit and language of the amendment does not align with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 which aims at restricting data retention as opposed to broadening it by requiring the deletion of personal data once the purpose for such collection has been fulfilled. Moreover, the removal of an upper limit on the retention of data including registration details, user content, and activities, including metadata, heightens risks of surveillance, and unauthorised access or data breaches,” Amnesty said.
Why this matters: India’s 2026 draft IT Amendment Rules have invited criticism from all directions. As MediaNama reported earlier, leading journalist organisations at the Press Club of India, including DIGIPUB, the Editors’ Guild of India, the Indian Women’s Press Corps, the Network of Women in Media, and the Delhi Union of Journalists, have also called for its rollback.
These press bodies termed the proposed framework a “serious threat” to press freedom and free speech, cautioning that the amendments could undermine constitutional protections under Article 19(1)(a).
MeitY’s proposed amendments have also triggered backlash from social media users, with some arguing that the government, already seen as having significant sway over mainstream media, may use the draft to extend that control to digital platforms.
The developments come amid ongoing court cases against previous amendments to the IT Rules, 2021, where interim orders have been passed in some instances. Amnesty pointed out that instead of addressing concerns raised by civil society and stakeholders, the draft amendments “steamroll” key issues, including:
Also Read:
For You
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。