Manish Tewari | Towards Tighter Online Censorship And Political Dictatorship

When the Government of India introduced the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules in 2021, experts raised concerns about expanded executive influence that tantamounted to Constitutional overreach qua online speech.

Since then, the Rules have steadily evolved through amendments, advisories and executive interventions. The Draft IT Rules Second Amendment, 2026, is yet another major turning point that could reshape the relationship between citizens, platforms, and regulators.

According to MeitY, the proposed amendments are clarificatory and procedural in nature, aimed at strengthening intermediary compliance, improving legal certainty, and enhancing oversight mechanisms relating to online content regulation. However, a closer reading also raises important questions about the scope of executive oversight and the potential impact of the amendments on lawful online expression and the Constitutional Guarantee of Free Speech.

Broadening the scope of online speech regulation

One of the most significant changes is the expansion of the Rules from publishers to ordinary users. The amended Rule 8(1) seeks to bring “news and current affairs content” posted by non-publisher users under the regulatory framework of Part III of the IT Rules. This means the same mechanism originally designed for digital publishers and OTT platforms could now potentially apply to individual citizens posting commentary, analysis or opinions online that constitutes the most extreme form of censorship proscribing the individual’s freedom of speech and expression.

The concern lies not only in the expansion, but also in the vagueness of the definition itself. “News and current affairs content” includes “noteworthy content” relating to socio-political, economic, or cultural issues. In practice, this could cover a wide range of online speech - from an Instagram story discussing elections to a WhatsApp forward about public policy or a tweet criticising government action.

This marks a significant expansion of the regulatory framework into areas of ordinary online expression. The breadth of the language may create room for inconsistent interpretation and uneven enforcement. India has already seen repeated cases involving content takedown requests, blocking orders and pressure to remove politically embarrassing material especially for ruling dispensations both at the Centre and in the states. It would not be trite to state that the misuse of these take down provisions is exponentially more by the Central government. The proposed changes will exacerbate the gross abuse of executive discretion in content governance.

Expanding executive oversight mechanisms

Another notable aspect of the amendments is the expanded role of the Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC), an executive-led body that oversees digital content. The amended Rule 14(2) would give the ministry the power to refer matters directly to the IDC even where there is no complaint from an aggrieved party. This means that the executive authorities could proactively initiate the scrutiny of online content at their own discretion.

This would represent a notable shift in the structure of content oversight. Previously, the framework at least nominally relied on complaints and grievance mechanisms. The new proposal appears to move toward a more proactive model of executive scrutiny where authorities may initiate review of content even absent a user complaint. The lack of independent or judicial oversight in this process raises serious constitutional concerns.

The proposed amendments also come at a time when several provisions of the 2021 IT Rules are already under judicial challenge before the constitutional courts. The Bombay High Court had stayed portions of the Rules relating to the Code of Ethics and government oversight mechanisms, observing that they could have a chilling effect on free speech. The Madras High Court affirmed that the stay would apply nationally.

Against this backdrop, the proposed expansion of similar oversight mechanisms raises questions about whether further judicial clarity should first be awaited.

Expansion of Due Diligence Obligations

Perhaps the most significant amendment is the insertion of Rule 3(4), which links intermediary safe harbour protections to compliance with government-issued advisories, clarifications, guidelines, directions, and standard operating procedures.

Under Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, intermediaries are protected from liability for actions of their users so long as they follow due diligence obligations. This “safe harbour” principle forms the backbone of the modern internet.

Advisories, clarifications, guidelines and standard operating procedures are administrative directions and are not laws made through parliamentary scrutiny. Unlike rules that are debated in Parliament or formally notified and subject to legislative oversight, executive instructions can be issued, modified or expanded with limited transparency and accountability. Making intermediary liability contingent upon compliance with these directions raises larger constitutional issues of excessive delegation of power and concentration of power in the hands of the executive.

By requiring compliance with executive instructions of varying legal status issued by the ministry, the amendment could create a strong incentive for platforms to over-comply. As a result, intermediaries may adopt a more precautionary approach toward potentially contentious content, especially that is critical of the ruling dispensation at the Centre in order to minimise the risk of losing safe harbour. Faced with legal uncertainty, platforms are more likely to remove content pre-emptively or suppress speech altogether.

Journalists, researchers, activists, creators and ordinary citizens may become more cautious in engaging with politically or socially sensitive issues online and will further fine tune the “censor” internalised in their minds since 2014.

Balancing platform accountability with constitutional freedoms

The challenges of misinformation, online abuse, synthetic media, and platform accountability are genuine and increasingly difficult to govern. Governments globally are grappling with how to regulate digital platforms. Democratic regulation, however, cannot be achieved at the cost of constitutional freedoms. Any regulation of online speech must be based on the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality and independent oversight.

The Internet today is not merely a technological space. It is India’s primary public sphere, where political debates, journalism, activism, satire, and democratic participation increasingly occur online. Expanding executive control over digital expression thus has deleterious consequences not just for platform regulation but for the contours of speech itself.

The Draft IT Rules Second Amendment, 2026, reflect the growing global challenge of balancing platform accountability, online safety, and constitutional freedoms in increasingly complex digital ecosystems. If enacted without meaningful safeguards, it risks normalising a more restrictive digital space, where platforms err on the side of removal, and users become more cautious in exercising lawful expression.