Draft IT rule tweaks set off alarms over state powers and costs

Proposed amendments to India’s Information Technology Rules, 2021 spell an expanded compliance burden for intermediaries and a significant widening of government oversight of online content, said industry executives and experts.

The electronics and information technology ministry on Monday released the draft changes, inviting public comments over the next 15 days, triggering a debate among policy experts, lawyers and digital rights groups.

The proposed changes expand data retention obligations under the IT Rules additional to retention requirements under any other law; makes intermediary compliance with MeitY-issued advisories legally binding, making such compliance a condition for retaining safe harbour; expands applicability of ministry of information and broadcasting's (MIB) oversight mechanism to intermediaries and users who are not publishers but share news and current affairs content online.


This oversight mechanism contains blocking powers of MIB that previously only MeitY had the power to do. The proposed change also expands the scope of the inter departmental committee from hearing "complaints or grievances" to hearing "matters", including those referred by the MIB.

The 15-day window, too, drew criticism for being too short for reforms with far-reaching implications.

Also Read: MeitY moves to regulate online user-posted news

Kazim Rizvi, founding director at The Dialogue, a Delhi-based public policy think tank, said the amendments could fundamentally alter how intermediaries manage compliance. A key proposal under Rule 3(4) would require platforms to adhere to not just notified rules but also a broad range of ministry-issued instruments such as advisories, clarifications, standard operating procedures and guidelines.

“In practice that means platforms may need to respond to a wider and evolving set of executive documents,” Rizvi said, adding that this would create a “continuous compliance environment” demanding tighter coordination across legal, policy and operational teams.

Legal experts caution that such provisions could expose platforms to heightened risk. A technology policy lawyer told ET on condition of anonymity that making compliance with these instruments a condition for retaining safe harbour protections under Section 79 of the IT Act could create “endless, shifting compliance burdens”, potentially placing intermediaries in conflict with constitutional safeguards.

The amendments also propose extending the ambit of Part III of the rules, originally designed for digital news publishers, to include certain user-generated “news and current affairs content”. This could bring content creators, citizen journalists and commentators within a formal regulatory framework that allows for recommendations on takedowns, modification or blocking.

Rizvi said this marks a “significant shift,” potentially subjecting a broader category of public-interest speech to structured regulatory scrutiny while increasing legal risks for platforms hosting such content.

Another major change relates to the inter-departmental committee (IDC), which could see its role expanded. The draft allows the IDC to examine not just complaints but also “matters” referred directly by the government, effectively widening the pathway for content to come under official review.

Critics argue this alters the nature of the committee. The technology policy lawyer cited earlier described it as blurring the line between grievance redressal and enforcement, potentially turning platforms into “quasi-judicial actors” tasked with adjudicating speech-related disputes.

Also Read: Centre for blanket content licensing for AI training

The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has strongly opposed the amendments, calling them a “dangerous expansion of executive power over online speech” and pressing for their immediate withdrawal. The digital rights advocacy organisation warned that Rule 3(4), in particular, grants “uncanalised power” to the government to issue binding directions not explicitly anchored in the parent law.

The IFF also flagged concerns that the changes could effectively bypass ongoing judicial scrutiny of the 2021 IT Rules. Several provisions, including the Code of Ethics and grievance redressal framework, remain under challenge in courts, with interim stays issued by multiple high courts.

By extending oversight mechanisms to user-generated content and broadening the IDC’s remit, the amendments could recreate “content control machinery” that courts have already found constitutionally suspect, the IFF said.

Data retention provisions have also been tightened, making existing obligations under the IT Rules additional to those under other laws. This raises the possibility of longer storage of user data, which critics say could heighten surveillance risks and expose sensitive information to breaches.

Taken together, experts said, the draft amendments signal a shift toward a more interventionist regulatory approach, with implications for platforms, creators and users alike.

While the government has positioned the changes as “clarificatory and procedural,” stakeholders argued they could reshape the balance between platform liability, executive authority and free speech online.

With the consultation window open till April 14, the debate over the future of intermediary regulation in India is likely to intensify.

Also Read: Tighter takedown rules are for all social media content