New Delhi, Mar 30 (PTI) The government on Monday proposed draft amendments to IT rules seeking to mandate intermediaries’ compliance with IT Ministry-issued clarifications, advisories and guidelines, even as digital rights advocacy group IFF warned that the move would effectively tie adherence to safe harbour status.
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) raised concerns over the draft provisions, saying the amendment creates a sweeping power for MeitY to issue binding instruments which are not anchored in law such as clarifications, advisories, directions, standard operating procedures, codes of practice, and guidelines “that intermediaries must comply with as a condition of safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act”.
The Ministry of Electronics and IT (Meity), in a notice on its website on Monday, said the proposed amendments seeks to strengthen compliance with clarifications, advisories and directions issued by it (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) of the IT Rules, 2021.
“The Government of India remains committed to ensuring an open, safe, trusted and accountable Internet for all users of Internet-enabled services,” it said while inviting feedback/comments of stakeholders on the draft amendments to IT rules by April 14, 2026.
Draft amendments, among other things, talk of “mandating compliance by intermediaries with the ministry-issued clarifications, advisories, directions, SOPs, codes of practice and guidelines, forming part of due diligence under section 79”.
Another amendment seeks to widen the ambit of takedown/blocking orders to extend to intermediaries and news and current affairs content hosted by non-publisher users.
IFF, in a post on X, flagged serious concerns over proposed amendments to the IT Rules, 2021, and warned that the changes could significantly expand executive power over online speech.
It noted that draft IT rules insert a new clause that mandates intermediary compliance with the MeitY-issued clarifications, advisories, directions, SOPs, codes of practice, and guidelines, making such compliance a condition for retaining safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act.
“These are not anchored to the rule-making powers of the IT Act, 2000, and provide uncanalised power to MEITY despite it stating otherwise,” IFF wrote in its post.
It further claimed that the amendment “creates a sweeping power for MeitY to issue binding instruments, which are not anchored in law, such as clarifications, advisories, directions, SOPs, codes of practice, and guidelines that intermediaries must comply with as a condition of safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act”.
The practical effect of this change would be a perpetual compliance threat for intermediaries, IFF wrote.
“Any failure to comply with any MeitY-issued instrument, however vague, however rapidly issued, may cost them their safe harbour. The response for an intermediary is over-compliance and over-censorship,” IFF alleged.
The draft amendments clarify the applicability of Part III (Rule 8) to intermediaries and news and current affairs content hosted by non-publisher users; and talk of “strengthening of Rule 14 to expand the scope and functioning of the Inter-Departmental Committee to consider matters beyond complaints, including those referred by the Ministry”.
“The original proviso to Rule 8 (1) stated that Part III applied to intermediaries only for the purposes of rules 15 and 16, that is, content blocking directions and emergency blocking. The amended proviso now extends this to Rule 14, bringing intermediaries and user-generated news/current affairs content under the jurisdiction of the Inter-Departmental Committee,” IFF said.
