Govt to notify amendments to IT Rules by May-end. Controversial oversight clause likely to stay intact

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) is expected to notify amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Di...

What Happened

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) is expected to notify amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 by the end of May 2026.
The most contested provision — which would extend government oversight to ordinary social media users, influencers, content creators, and citizens who post or share news and current affairs content — is likely to be retained in the final notification.
The draft amendments (published on 30 March 2026) propose allowing the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) to issue takedown notices directly to individual users — not just to platforms — bringing private citizens under the regulatory framework previously applicable only to professional news publishers.
Under the proposed rules, news and current affairs content posted by YouTubers, Instagram reels creators, X (Twitter) users, and other influencers with substantial followings would fall under Part III of the IT Rules, which was previously limited to professional digital news publishers.
The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has raised alarm, stating the provisions "represent a dangerous expansion of executive power over online speech."
A public consultation period (originally ending 14 April 2026) was extended to 29 April 2026 following requests from industry stakeholders, after which the government proceeded towards notification.

Static Topic Bridges

The IT Rules 2021: Structure and Scope

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, notified under Section 87 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, regulate three categories of actors: (1) social media intermediaries (platforms like X, Meta, YouTube), (2) digital news publishers, and (3) OTT content platforms.

Part II deals with intermediary liability — it requires social media platforms with over 50 lakh users ("significant social media intermediaries" or SSMIs) to appoint a Chief Compliance Officer, Nodal Officer, and Grievance Officer.
Part III applies to publishers of news and current affairs content and OTT platforms, requiring adherence to a Code of Ethics, a three-tier self-regulatory structure, and government oversight by MIB.
Significant amendments in 2023 created a Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) — a government-appointed body to hear appeals against platform content moderation decisions.

Connection to this news: The 2026 amendments seek to extend Part III's oversight framework — designed for professional publishers — to any individual who posts news content on social media, a dramatic expansion of the regulatory perimeter.

Safe Harbour and Intermediary Liability

Section 79 of the IT Act grants "safe harbour" protection to intermediaries: platforms are not liable for third-party content they host, provided they observe due diligence, follow prescribed guidelines, and take down content upon actual knowledge of illegality. This protection is the legal foundation of the modern internet.

Safe harbour protection was modelled on the US Communications Decency Act, Section 230.
The Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) judgment struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional under Article 19(1)(a), setting a high bar for restricting online speech.
In Shreya Singhal, the court also read down Section 79 — holding that platforms need only remove content upon a court order or government order, not upon any private party complaint.

Connection to this news: By proposing to issue takedown notices directly to individual users for news content, the government bypasses the platform intermediary layer and raises fresh constitutional questions about whether such targeted executive action is consistent with the Article 19 free speech jurisprudence established in Shreya Singhal.

Freedom of Speech and Reasonable Restrictions (Article 19)

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(2) permits the State to impose "reasonable restrictions" on this right on grounds including sovereignty and integrity of India, security of State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence.

The restriction must pass a two-part test: (i) it must fall within one of the eight enumerated grounds in Article 19(2), and (ii) it must be "reasonable" — proportionate, not arbitrary, and not excessively broad.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that vagueness in a law restricting speech is unconstitutional ("chilling effect" doctrine — Shreya Singhal, 2015).
Rules made under delegated legislation (like the IT Rules) cannot travel beyond the scope of the parent Act (IT Act, 2000) or override fundamental rights.

Connection to this news: The constitutionality of applying MIB's publisher-oversight framework to ordinary citizens is likely to be challenged in court — critics argue that treating every citizen who shares news as a "publisher" is overbroad, vague, and fails the proportionality test under Article 19(2).

Key Facts & Data

IT Rules 2021 were notified on 25 February 2021 under Sections 79(2) and 87(2) of the IT Act, 2000.
Draft amendments to IT Rules were published for public consultation on 30 March 2026 by MeitY.
Public comment deadline was extended from 14 April to 29 April 2026.
Part III of IT Rules 2021 previously applied only to: (a) publishers of news and current affairs content, and (b) publishers of curated audio-visual content (OTT platforms).
The proposed 2026 amendments would extend Part III oversight to individual users posting news content — potentially covering hundreds of millions of social media users in India.
India has over 100 crore internet users; active social media users exceed 60 crore.
The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and several press freedom organisations have formally objected to the draft amendments during the public consultation period.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) remains the leading constitutional authority on online free speech in India.