Draft Amendments to the IT Rules, 2021 on binding advisories and digital media oversight (MeitY notice of 30 March 2026)

The IT Rules, 2021 had just been amended by G.S.R. 120(E) of 10 February 2026, which added synthetic-content duties and cut takedown deadlines.⁹ The 30 March 2026 notice proposed a further, separate round of amendments. Its stated aim was to 'strengthen compliance with clarifications, advisories and directions issued by the Ministry under Part II' and to 'enhance the effectiveness of regulatory oversight of content regulation mechanisms under Part III (Code of Ethics relating to Digital Media)'. It described the amendments as 'clarificatory and procedural in nature', intended to improve legal certainty, strengthen the enforceability of Ministry directions and ensure effective oversight of intermediary-hosted content, 'particularly news and current affairs'.¹

The background was a growing reliance on advisories. MeitY had used them against deepfakes in 2023, against unreliable AI models in March 2024 (replaced after a backlash), over obscene content in December 2025 and over Grok in January 2026, and legal commentators had long questioned the status of advisories under the IT Act.⁶ MediaNama also reported on 24 March 2026, citing the Indian Express, that the Centre was exploring cutting takedown timelines from the current two to three hours to one hour; that exploratory proposal was not part of the draft and had not been adopted.⁷

The notice and the analyses by MediaNama and the Internet Freedom Foundation identify four changes.¹²³

1. Compliance with Ministry instruments (new Rule 3(4)). Intermediaries would have to comply with clarifications, advisories, directions, standard operating procedures, codes of practice and guidelines issued by the Ministry, which would 'form part of due diligence under section 79'. Under Rule 7, an intermediary that fails to observe the Rules loses the safe harbour of Section 79(1), so the practical effect would be that ignoring an advisory could lead to loss of immunity.¹⁹

2. Retention (Rules 3(1)(g) and (h)). The existing 180-day retention periods, for removed content and associated records and for user registration data, would be stated to be 'without prejudice to requirements under other laws'. MediaNama read this as meaning the 180-day period would not be a basis for deleting data that other laws require platforms to keep, which could mean longer storage with no clear maximum; IFF objected that mandatory storage increases breach risk and asked for retention to be limited to lawful purposes.²³⁹

3. News and current affairs content hosted by users (Rule 8). Part III now applies to publishers of news and current affairs content and of online curated content, and to intermediaries only for the purposes of Rules 15 and 16 on blocking. The draft would clarify applicability to 'intermediaries and news and current affairs content hosted by non-publisher users', so that commentary or threads on current events by creators who are not publishers could fall within the Information and Broadcasting Ministry's blocking and oversight framework.¹²⁹

4. Inter-Departmental Committee (Rule 14). The Committee, chaired by an Authorised Officer not below Joint Secretary rank and made up of representatives of several ministries, currently hears complaints from the grievance mechanism or referred to it by the Ministry, and can recommend warnings, apologies, disclaimers, deletion or modification of content, and action under Section 69A, on which the Ministry may direct publishers or intermediaries. The draft would let it consider 'matters beyond complaints', including those referred by the Ministry.¹⁹

MeitY gave stakeholders 15 days, until 14 April 2026, to comment by email, and said that submissions would be held in fiduciary capacity and not disclosed.¹ The Internet Freedom Foundation asked for a further 15 days on 31 March, and submitted its representation on 6 April 2026.³

Stakeholder meeting. On 8 April 2026 MeitY Secretary S. Krishnan met platforms, industry bodies and civil society and then briefed the press. According to MediaNama, he said the ministry might extend the 14 April deadline; that the amendment did not change how content-blocking orders under Sections 69A and 79 are issued; that news and current-affairs content posted by users would fall under the Information and Broadcasting Ministry's code-of-ethics framework while there was no intention to treat publishers and non-publishers the same; and that the government would try to compile a single framework of guidelines, calling consolidation 'a reasonable request'. Attendees included Meta, Snapchat, YouTube, Google, ShareChat and the Internet Freedom Foundation, and questions on the line between users, intermediaries and publishers, user liability, the scope of government powers, enforcement and whether advisories are binding were left unresolved. MediaNama's editor described the meeting as 'a compliance exercise'.⁴

Press bodies. Six journalists' organisations, 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, met at the Press Club of India on 11 April 2026 and demanded unconditional withdrawal of the draft, saying that it could undermine Article 19(1)(a), create a chilling effect and impose disproportionate compliance costs on independent creators such as podcasters and newsletter writers. They also objected to the cut in takedown timelines from 36 hours to three, the spread of blocking powers across agencies, and the Sahyog portal. MeitY and the Information and Broadcasting Ministry had not responded in the report reviewed.⁵

Internet Freedom Foundation. IFF asked for withdrawal of the draft in its entirety. It argued that Rule 3(4) places executive instruments on a par with court orders and government notifications even though they are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny and need not be public; that it does not conform to the rule-making provisions of Section 87 of the IT Act; that Section 79 is an exemption provision and not a censorship mechanism; and that the intermediary standards must remain consistent with Shreya Singhal. It cited the 2 January 2026 MeitY letter to X over Grok as an example of a private executive instrument. On Rule 14, it said the Committee could become a 'free-standing censorship committee' without a complaint, a Code of Ethics violation or a hearing for the affected party.³

Lawyers and former officials. At a MediaNama discussion on 23 April 2026, a former MeitY Cyber Laws official said advisories are 'advisory in nature' and called the proposal a possibly 'invalid proposition'; an Ikigai Law lawyer said binding force requires issuance under Section 87 and cited the March 2024 AI advisory, which he said the government withdrew after industry pushback, as the reason advisories should stay non-binding; and a Centre for Communication Governance researcher said Rule 3(4) appeared inconsistent with Shreya Singhal, because the draft covers a very different class of government intimations and applies to all of Part II rather than just takedowns.⁶

The draft matters for AI because MeitY has governed AI-generated content largely through advisories. If Rule 3(4) were notified, instruments such as the 2023 deepfake advisories, the March 2024 AI-model advisory (whose permission requirement was dropped within two weeks) and the 8 October 2026 'enhanced diligence' advisory, which asks platforms to label or contextualise manipulated, synthetically generated or misleading content, would arguably become conditions of safe harbour.⁶¹⁰ The February 2026 amendment shows that MeitY can already create binding AI duties through formal notification; the draft would add a faster, less formal route that does not require a rule change for each new duty. Critics said that this would give the executive a way to expand obligations on AI services without the notice-and-comment and legal-vires scrutiny that a rule amendment attracts.³⁶

The consultation closed on 14 April 2026, and the sources reviewed do not say whether the deadline was extended. As of 9 October 2026, when the Internet Freedom Foundation criticised MeitY's new 'enhanced diligence' advisory and called on the Ministry to abandon proposed Rule 3(4), the draft had not been notified.⁸ The sources reviewed do not report that the Ministry has withdrawn it. In the interim MeitY has continued to issue advisories, including that of 8 October 2026 to social media intermediaries on misinformation and manipulated content, which the Foundation said cites no provision empowering the Ministry to issue it; that advisory was sent to platforms and became public through MediaNama.⁸¹⁰