The Government Wants to Control What You Say Online

Dear Sir/Madam, Subject: Comments to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology on the Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules, 2026 I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules, 2026 ("Draft Amendments") which amend certain rules in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 ("IT Rules, 2021"). My feedback/comments on the Draft Amendments in a clause-by-clause manner are as follows: 1. Mandatory retention obligations under Rules 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(h): This amendment indicates that intermediaries/platforms will have to retain user data when they register for a computer resource for a period of 180 days. Even though India's data protection law states that personal data obtained to provide certain services ought to be erased upon satisfaction of the "specified purpose" for which such data was obtained. This requirement of erasure does not apply if retention is necessary for "compliance" with any law. Mandating storage of user data for longer periods increases the risk of data breaches, especially when sensitive user information is kept for extended periods of time. Recommendation: This proposed amendment must be withdrawn entirely. Data should only be retained for specific, lawful purposes and not for vague or general use. Intermediaries should be required to disclose data retention practices if beyond the stipulated 180-day period, including how long data is stored and under what legal basis. Moreover, principles under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, including data minimisation and purpose limitation must be accounted for. 2. Insertion of Rule 3(4) mandating compliance by intermediaries with MeitY-issued instruments, forming part of due diligence under section 79: This rule requires intermediaries to comply with a range of executive-issued clarifications, advisories, directions, SOPs, codes of practice, and guidelines, to retain their safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act. This lowers the constitutional threshold established in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India by treating MeitY's informal instruments at par with judicial determinations. There is no requirement that such instruments undergo parliamentary scrutiny or be made public. Recommendation: This proposed amendment must be withdrawn entirely. Any framework governing intermediary obligations must remain consistent with the standard established in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, and should not permit informal or executive-issued instructions to determine intermediary liability. 3. Rule 8(1) expands applicability to news and current affairs content hosted by users who are not "publishers": The expansion of Rules 14, 15, and 16 to users who are not publishers but share news and current affairs content is an attempt to bring user-generated content under the MIB's blocking powers and the jurisdiction of the Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC). Recommendation: This proposed amendment must be withdrawn entirely. The scope of Rule 8(1) should be restricted to publishers, as originally intended, and should not extend to user-generated content on intermediary platforms. 4. Rule 14 expansion of the IDC's scope to hear "matters" referred by MIB: The IDC now operates as a free-standing censorship committee that can take up "matters" referred by the executive, with no requirement that matters arise from a complaint, relate to a Code of Ethics violation, or that the affected party be heard. Given the current surge in takedown notices, this expansion raises grave concerns about the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Recommendation: This proposed amendment must be withdrawn entirely. The IDC should not be permitted to function as an executive censorship mechanism outside the procedural safeguards of Section 69A of the IT Act. 5. I also call upon MeitY to publish the comments received in response to these proposed amendments, in line with the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, 2014. Best Regards, [Your Name]