The Indian government has recently proposed significant amendments to its Information Technology (IT) rules, aiming to expand its regulatory reach over a broader spectrum of online content creators, including influencers, podcasters, and ordinary users who share news and current affairs on platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter). These changes, suggested last week by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), seek to extend a "code of ethics" currently applied to registered news publishers to what the government terms "users who are not publishers" but who nonetheless disseminate news-related content.
At the core of these proposed amendments is the government's effort to bring a wider array of online content under formal oversight. Under the current framework, registered news publishers are subject to specific rules and guidelines, but the new suggestions aim to include individuals who share news or current affairs content without necessarily being recognized as traditional publishers. This could encompass independent journalists, commentators, podcasters, and social media influencers who wield significant influence through their digital presence.
One major consequence of this expansion is that social media platforms would be required to comply promptly with government orders and guidelines if they want to maintain their "safe harbour" protection-legal immunity shielding them from liability for user-generated content. This means companies like Facebook, YouTube, and X would have to swiftly act on takedown requests or other directives related to news content, or risk losing their protection from being held legally responsible for posts by their users.
The government justifies the amendments as necessary measures to strengthen existing IT rules, aiming to combat the proliferation of fake news, hate speech, and digitally manipulated content such as deepfakes. MeitY has invited public feedback on the proposed changes, with a deadline set for April 14. Officials argue that as news and current affairs content is no longer produced solely by traditional media houses but by a wide array of digital users, a common regulatory framework is essential to ensure accountability and curb harmful content.
However, the reaction from digital rights advocates, independent journalists, and creators has been overwhelmingly critical. Many see the amendments as a tool for the government to exert greater control over online discourse, potentially fostering an environment of censorship and self-censorship. Critics warn that the expanded rules could be weaponized to silence dissent, target critics, and stifle free expression in India's vibrant digital space.
Akash Banerjee, a prominent YouTuber who runs The Deshbhakt channel with over six million subscribers, voiced concerns about the chilling effect these rules might have on creators. Banerjee argues that despite existing regulations, hate speech and misinformation have not diminished significantly in India. Meanwhile, content critical of the government, including satire, faces increasing censorship. "Interestingly, despite the many laws regulating online content, hate speech and fake news haven't reduced in the country. Meanwhile, posts that are critical of the government-even if they're satirical-are increasingly being blocked or removed," he said. The government, however, denies these accusations of unfair censorship.
A recent example of government action under the existing laws highlights these concerns. Last month, X blocked approximately a dozen accounts known for their satirical posts about Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government. These actions were taken under Section 69A of India's IT Act, which allows the government to order content removals in the name of national security and public order.
One such affected user is Kumar Nayan, who operates the X account @Nehr_who? with around 242,000 followers. Nayan told the BBC that his account was blocked without prior notice or explanation. Although a court order recently restored his account, ten of his posts remain blocked in India pending review by a government-appointed panel. The BBC reviewed these posts and found them to be satirical or critical of the government, none of which, according to Nayan, posed any real threat to national security or public harmony. "No reasonable person will say that these posts threaten the nation's security or disturb communal harmony. They are just funny posts, so why does the government want them taken down?" he questioned.
Nayan also raised concerns about the personal risks of challenging government orders in court. By doing so, his identity became public, exposing him to potential harassment and threats. "I have lost the anonymity offered by social media, which is a double-edged sword but also shields whistleblowers and critics from threats and harassment," he explained. Since then, he has had to move to a new residence for safety reasons.
Digital rights activists highlight that these recent developments are part of a broader trend of increasing governmental control over online content. Nikhil Pahwa, a well-known advocate for digital freedom, describes the proposed amendments as reinforcing an already existing "infrastructure for mass censorship." Together with Apar Gupta, founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation, Pahwa has documented how successive amendments to India's IT rules have progressively expanded government power over digital media.
In 2021, amendments brought digital news outlets under direct government oversight. In 2025, changes strengthened the Ministry of Home Affairs' Sahyog portal, a centralized platform that enables various government agencies to issue takedown notices to social media companies with minimal transparency or safeguards. This portal operates parallel to the formal content blocking powers granted under Section 69A of the IT Act but with even less public accountability.
In early 2026, the rules were amended yet again, drastically reducing the time social media platforms have to comply with government blocking orders-from 36 hours to just three hours. This compressed timeframe severely limits the opportunity for legal review and due process. Pahwa notes that social media companies, eager to maintain access to India's vast market, generally comply with these orders. Meanwhile, citizens affected by content restrictions receive no prior notice, no hearings, and no explanations, leading to a situation where neither the government nor the platforms are held accountable in a timely manner.
Defending the proposed changes, MeitY Secretary S. Krishnan told the BBC that the guidelines and amendments are consistent with Indian law and the Constitution. He emphasized the need for a unified regulatory framework to govern news and current affairs content, especially since such content is now shared widely by ordinary citizens and not just formal news publishers.
Meanwhile, individuals affected by content restrictions continue to speak out. Sandeep Singh, who runs the X account @ActivistSandeep with over 100,000 followers, shared his experience after his account was blocked in March. Singh said he began posting critical views because he felt mainstream media was biased in favor of the BJP. "I stand for the truth and blocking my accounts or posts will not stop me from continuing speaking truth to power," he told the BBC. His account remained blocked in India at the time of reporting.
Nayan also highlighted the unequal ability of users to challenge government censorship. While he has the resources and legal means to seek redress through the courts, many others may not have the same capacity or willingness to go to such lengths. "In a democracy, people should have the liberty to post what they want, with certain limitations of course, without fear. India is a democracy, so why has it become so difficult to do so?" he asked.
These recent developments reveal a complex and evolving landscape of digital regulation in India. The government's push to broaden its regulatory ambit over online news and current affairs content reflects its desire to control misinformation and harmful content but also raises serious concerns about freedom of expression and potential overreach. Digital rights organizations, independent journalists, and creators remain wary of the impact these changes could have on the open exchange of ideas in one of the world's largest and most active digital spaces.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has invited public comments on the proposed changes until April 14, offering a window for stakeholders and citizens to weigh in. Meanwhile, many await to see how these amendments will reshape the balance between regulation, free speech, and digital rights in India's rapidly changing online environment.