Neither 'Clarificatory' Nor 'Procedural' – Proposed Amendments to IT Rules Are Dangerous Expansion of Executive Power

tl;dr

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology published the Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules, 2026 (“Draft Amendments”) which amend certain rules in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“2021 IT Rules”). These Draft Amendments raise various concerns, which we have indicated in our representation containing comments/feedback to MeitY on 06 April 2026. This blogpost also gives an overview of the various concerns. To mobilize IFF members and citizenry for this cause, we have drafted a short template email which readers can improvise upon. The last date for sending comments is 14 April 2026, subject to any extensions that may be granted.

Background

On 30 March 2026, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology published proposed amendments to the 2021 IT Rules inviting public comments by 14 April,  a comment period of barely fifteen (15) days for changes with far reaching consequences for free speech and intermediary governance in India. Despite being presented as "clarificatory and procedural," they represent a dangerous expansion of executive power over online speech.

We wish to state at the outset that these proposed amendments need to be immediately withdrawn and every member in our citizenry should demand their roll back and stand with the Constitution of India. These proposed amendments come at a time of fear and increased government directed censorship, especially of online political speech that includes parody and satire of the government, including the Prime Minister.

On 31 March 2026, IFF wrote to MeitY to grant an extension of further 15 days to provide comments and feedback on the Draft Amendments, and we are yet to receive a response on this.

Analysis

Our concerns with the Draft Amendments are as follows:

Mandatory retention obligations under Rules 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(h)

This amendment indicates that intermediaries/platforms will have to retain user data when they register for a computer resource for a period of 180 days. Even though India’s data protection law states that personal data obtained to provide certain services ought to be erased upon satisfaction of the “specified purpose” for which such data was obtained. This requirement of erasure does not apply if retention is necessary for “compliance” with any law. Mandating storage of user data for longer periods increases the risk of data breaches, especially when sensitive user information is kept for extended periods of time.

Recommendation: This amendment must be entirely withdrawn from these rules. Data should only be retained for specific, lawful purposes and not for vague or general use. Therefore, intermediaries should be required to disclose data retention practices if beyond the stipulated 180-day period, including how long data is stored and under what legal basis under any other law for the time being in force. Moreover, principles under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, including data minimisation, erasure upon exhaustion of “specified purpose” of data collection, i.e. purpose limitation must be accounted for.

Insertion of Rule 3(4) mandating compliance by intermediaries with MeitY's instruments, forming part of due diligence under section 79

This rule requires intermediaries to comply with a range of executive-issued clarifications, advisories, directions, standard operating procedures, codes of practice, and guidelines, to retain their safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act. There are several issues with such a vague and overbroad provision mandating compliance with a range of secretive, ad-hoc, and executive-issued instruments.

• First, it lowers the constitutional threshold for intermediary due diligence obligations established in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, by treating MeitY’s clarifications, advisories, directions, or SOPs, etc. at par with judicial determinations and government notifications.
• Second, even though Rule 3(4)(b) indicates that any such order, notice, clarification, advisory, SOP, code or practice, or guideline shall be issued in writing and specify statutory legal basis, specify scope, and be consistent with Act and Rules, no other legal instrument barring amendments to the Act and the rules under Section 87 undergo parliamentary scrutiny.
• Third, there is no requirement that any such order, notice, clarification, advisory, SOP, code or practice, or guideline shall be made public. Previously, MeitY had privately issued a letter to X Corp/Grok on 02 January 2026, citing a failure to comply with statutory due diligence obligations under the IT Act and the 2021 IT Rules.

Recommendation: This amendment must be entirely withdrawn from these rules. Rule 3(4) should be withdrawn in its entirety. Any framework governing intermediary obligations must remain consistent with the standard established in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, and should not permit informal or executive-issued instructions to determine intermediary liability. Further, the proposed rule suffers from arbitrariness for not being in conformity with the rule making provisions prescribed under the IT Act. Therefore, the MeitY must withdraw this proposed amendment in its entirety.

Amendment to the proviso to Rule 8(1) expanding applicability of Rules 14, 15, and 16 to news and current affairs content hosted by users who are not “publishers”

The expansion of Rules 14, 15, and 16 to users who are not “publishers” but share news and current affairs content is an attempt to bring both intermediaries and user-generated news under the MIB’s blocking powers and the jurisdiction of the Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) under Part III of the 2021 IT Rules.

Recommendation: This amendment must be entirely withdrawn from these rules. Any regulation of user-generated content should follow established legal processes, including those under Section 69A of the IT Act, and should not be routed through indirect mechanisms. Therefore, the scope of Rule 8(1) should be restricted to publishers, as originally intended, and should not extend to user-generated content on intermediary platforms. Therefore, such amendment to the proviso should be withdrawn in its entirety. 

Amendment to Rule 14 to expand the scope and functioning of the IDC to hear “matters” referred by MIB

• Rule 14(2) presently requires the IDC to hear "complaints regarding violation or contravention of the Code of Ethics”. These are complaints and grievances from users.
• The IDC now hears: (a) grievances arising from decisions at Level I or II (from users); or (b) "matters" referred to by the Ministry. Clause (b) is unconstrained since:

1. there is no requirement that the "matter" arise from a complaint,
2. no requirement that the "matter" relate to a Code of Ethics violation; and
3. no requirement that the affected party be heard before the referral.

• The IDC effectively now operates as a free-standing censorship committee that can take up "matters" referred to by the executive. Given the current surge in takedown notices this year, such expansion raises further concerns on the freedom of speech enumerated under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Recommendation: This amendment must be entirely withdrawn from these rules. Section 69A and Section 79 of the IT Act are the two provisions that allow for blocking mechanisms. Section 69A provides for the original blocking mechanism and Section 79 acts as an exemption provision (not an independent censorship mechanism). The minimal procedural safeguards enumerated under Section 69A are already being diluted. First, the government is increasingly relying on Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 IT Rules, to compel intermediaries to remove content. On top of it the current draft amendments allow the IDC to now operate as a free-standing censorship committee that can take up "matters" referred to by the executive. Together, this forms a chilling effect, this means that people may refrain from expressing themselves online due to the fear of their content or entire account being taken down. Such a climate not only erodes individual liberty but also dilutes the essence of democracy by curbing public debate, criticism, and activism. Therefore, the MeitY must withdraw this proposed amendment in its entirety.

Action

IFF has written to the MeitY with the above concerns. Read our comments here.

We urge IFF’s members and citizens to write to the MeitY with their views and comments. To mobilise IFF members and citizenry for this cause, we encourage that you use or work upon this template email and send it to the email addresses mentioned therein, specifically itrules.consultation@meity.gov.in.

This article was first published by the Internet Freedom Foundation. It has been republished under Creative Commons license

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.