The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) is proposing to allow affected online users and internet intermediaries to participate in Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) hearings, giving them a clearer opportunity to argue against content blocking orders, officials told The Economic Times.

“In recent stakeholder consultations, some intermediaries have requested us to ensure the user is given a clear chance to represent and explain their rationale behind posting flagged content, if they choose to do so. It’s part of continuous efforts to make government processes more accessible,” according to an official who spoke to the Economic Times.

Draft amendments expand IDC scope: The proposal follows draft amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which broaden regulatory oversight. Previously, the framework applied to publishers of news and curated content. However, the amendments now extend this oversight to all user posts related to news and current affairs.

As a result, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) gains the authority to examine and potentially block news-related content posted by individual users, not just publishers.

Content takedowns in March: In March 2026, online censorship sharply escalated, with MediaNama documenting over 40 instances of geo-blocking, account withholding, or content takedowns, affecting more than 30 individuals, including journalists, satirists, and ordinary users. These actions ranged from the removal of a student’s vlog on the Prime Minister’s airport inauguration to takedowns linked to critical reportage. Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court ordered the restoration of two X accounts, DrNimoYadav and Nher_who, which authorities had blocked under Section 69A.

Expanded role creates ambiguity: Rakesh Maheshwari, former senior director and group coordinator for cyber laws, cyber security, and data governance at MeitY, said during the BIF Digital Dialogue on Draft IT Rules, organised by the Broadband India Forum (BIF), that the draft amendments do not materially change obligations for publishers, noting that practically no change has occurred and “their liability continues to be existing the same way as it was”.

However, he raised concerns about the IDC’s structure, stating that “the request can directly flow from the ministry to the IDC”, which “creates a conflict of roles and responsibility”. He added that “the same person is the doer, the same person is like an approver”, questioning neutrality.

On user content, Maheshwari said enforcement already existed under Section 69A, and “the only shift I believe which has happened is that, maybe for certain types of user-generated content, the responsible ministry has changed.” He added that this “creates a bit of ambiguity rather than solving it.”

Also read

• After DrNimoYadav, Kumar Nayan challenges MeitY’s X account blocking order in Delhi HC
• Kunal Kamra tells Bombay HC police sent “thousands” of takedown notices via Sahyog portal
• Who has the power to block defamatory content, MeitY or MIB? Asked Karnataka HC in Darshan’s case