Amid a public outcry over proposed amendments to the Information Technology Rules, the ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY) on Tuesday indicated it may extend the April 14 deadline for stakeholder feedback, following consultations with intermediaries and civil society groups.
IT Secretary S Krishnan said the ministry was open-minded and would examine all suggestions before finalising the amendments. “We have received requests for more time, we will consider what is appropriate,” he told reporters after the meeting, adding that stakeholders had sought additional time as well as, in some cases, withdrawal of the draft changes.
The draft amendments, released on March 30, propose changes to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. A key provision expands the scope of news and current affairs content to include material posted by non-publisher users such as influencers and content creators, effectively bringing such content within the ambit of Part III of the rules, which currently applies to digital news publishers.
A shift in regulatory oversight
The proposals also envisage a shift in regulatory oversight, with certain powers relating to news and current affairs content to be shared with the ministry of information and broadcasting, while overall blocking powers remain with MeitY. Krishnan said the amendments aim to provide a clearer definition of such content within the framework.
Another significant change relates to due diligence requirements under Section 79 of the IT Act. The draft seeks to make compliance with government-issued advisories, guidelines and standard operating procedures part of intermediary obligations. “We are not expanding any powers, these are clarifications within the existing framework,” Krishnan said.
However, the linkage of compliance to safe harbour protections has raised concerns among social media companies, which fear that failure to act on advisories could expose them to legal liability for user-generated content. Platforms have sought clarity on whether advisories would carry the same binding force as statutory orders.
Industry participants flag concerns
Industry participants also flagged concerns over being treated on par with publishers, stating that intermediaries host user-generated content and should not be subject to identical regulatory standards. “Intermediaries did not want to be clubbed with publishers, and publishers did not want to be clubbed with users,” Krishnan said, acknowledging the distinction raised by stakeholders.
Companies further pointed to operational challenges in enforcing content directions, particularly where platforms lack direct control over users, and warned of increased compliance burdens, especially for smaller firms and advertisers dependent on digital platforms. Calls were also made for clearer procedural safeguards, including prior consultation before issuing advisories and defined thresholds for regulatory action.
On concerns around censorship and free speech, the government said it remained bound by constitutional safeguards. Krishnan attributed the rise in content takedowns to an increase in problematic material, including AI-generated content, deepfakes, impersonation and misleading advertisements, while maintaining that formal blocking powers under Section 69A remain unchanged.
The ministry also said it would examine requests to consolidate multiple guidelines into a single framework. |
