Amendments to IT Rules, 2021

Amendments to IT Rules, 2021

Recently, the Indian government introduced a new amendment to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, or IT Rules, which gives the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) unrestricted power to create a “fact check unit” to identify false or misleading online content.

What are the IT Rules?

• The IT Rules derive their authority from the Information Technology Act, 2000, which provides legal recognition for electronic
• Safe Harbour Provision: The Act provides a “safe harbour” for intermediaries that observe due diligence in discharging their duties and follow guidelines prescribed by the state.
• Intermediaries: Section 79 of the Act grants immunity to intermediaries, as long as they follow due diligence and state-prescribed guidelines.
• Intermediaries include social media platforms like WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook, and
• First Originator: The IT Rules impose obligations on intermediaries and require social media platforms to provide technological solutions to identify the first originator of any information on their service, under certain
• The IT Rules have been subject to several sets of challenges, and petitions are pending consideration in the Supreme Court of India.

What are the New Regulations?

• The 2021 IT Rules replaced the previous guidelines and sought to regulate intermediaries and digital news
• Social media platforms were required to provide technological solutions to identify the first originator of any information, risking
• The amendments introduced in April 2023 give the Government power to decide for itself what information is bogus and exercise wide-ranging powers of censorship by compelling intermediaries to take down posts deemed fake or
• The new regulations threaten freedom of speech and civil liberties in India by restricting speech through executive order rather than

• Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution grants every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression,

which can only be limited through reasonable restrictions made by law on the grounds stipulated in Article 19(2).

• Fake news and misinformation are not grounds on which speech can be limited, and the amendments made to the IT Rules do not caveat the restraints they place in any
• The Fact Check Unit has limitless powers to decide what information is false and compel social media intermediaries to act based on these findings, which are open-ended and

Way Forward

• Lacks Clear Definitions: The amendment fails to define fake news and allows the Government’s fact-check unit to

declare the veracity of any news “in respect of any business” that involves the state.

• The use of undefined words, especially the phrase “any business”, gives the Government unchecked power to decide what people can see, hear, and read on the
• Not a Standard Practice: A comprehensive parliamentary legislation on fake news, grounded in Article 19(2), would have been a more constitutionally committed campaign against fake
• In France, an independent judge is responsible for making declarations to counter the spread of misinformation during
• Removable of Information: Intermediaries will remove information deemed false by the Fact Check Unit, leaving only the state to determine what is
• The new regulation gives the Government the power to decide what information is bogus and exercise censorship by compelling intermediaries to take down posts deemed fake or false.
• Lesser Rights: The rights of the press and individuals to question authority and speak truth to power will be diminished, and civil liberties will be curtailed.
• Violates the Supreme Court’s Judgment: Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015), Supreme Court held that a law that limits speech can neither be vague nor over-broad.