New Delhi: Any user posting content that qualifies as news and current affairs— whether on YouTube, Instagram, or X—could now fall under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s (MIB) regulatory framework, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology of India (MeitY) Secretary S. Krishnan said on Tuesday, confirming that the draft amendments go beyond registered publishers to ordinary users.
“Today with citizen journalism, this is a grey area,” he said. “People do comment, and I think this is something which as a society we are grappling with. All of you, your own profession is grappling.”
Krishnan said the definition in the draft rules covers content of a “socio-political, economic or cultural nature” where “the context, substance, purpose, import and meaning of such information is in the nature of news and current affairs”—a formulation broad enough to sweep in users who have never thought of themselves as publishers. “There is no denying” the grey area, he said. “That should concern you as much as it concerns me.”
The draft rules, formally titled the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules 2026 and released 30 March, propose to extend MIB’s Code of Ethics oversight—until now applicable only to registered news publishers—to user-generated content on intermediary platforms where the content is in the nature of news and current affairs.
They also propose to make compliance with MeitY-issued advisories, directions, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), and guidelines a condition for platforms to retain safe harbour protections under Section 79 of the IT Act. Platforms that fail to comply risk losing those protections and facing direct legal liability for all third-party content they host.
Krishnan said three distinct demands drove the amendments. Law enforcement agencies had asked for a data preservation provision. Intermediaries had asked for clarity on whether government advisories constitute binding guidelines. And MIB had asked for jurisdiction over news and current affairs content, which it said was its responsibility and not MeitY’s.
“We are basically only the technology guys,” he said. “There is enough on our table as it is.” On the jurisdictional question between ministries, he was wry. “Ministries are territorial that way. Journalists are territorial about their beats. I don’t mark my territory.”
Building blocks
On what crosses the line into news and current affairs, Krishnan offered an illustration. “I participated in the India AI summit and I had a wonderful experience — that I don’t think is news and current affairs content because it is about individual participation and experience,” he said.
But a user reporting on the same event with the intent of informing a wider audience could cross that line, he indicated. The rules define news and current affairs as content whose “context, substance, purpose, import and meaning” is in the nature of news — a test that, he acknowledged, has no bright line.
On the mass removals and account withholdings that have swept across social media platforms in recent weeks—targeting satirists, comedians, and political commentators—Krishnan said satire was not the target of government action.
He pushed back on the framing that social media is a space where freedom of speech applies in an unqualified sense, saying platforms are commercial bodies and that the right to expression under Article 19 of the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
He said courts had repeatedly upheld the government’s position on this. On the existing powers available to the government, he was emphatic. “What I want to emphasise is, this doesn’t change anything in terms of the ability to block. That overall power under Section 79 still lies with us. That power is not taken away from me.”
Krishnan was precise on the legal framework. Under Section 69A of the IT Act, the grounds for blocking are limited to four categories—security of state, friendly relations with foreign countries, national security, and public order. Under Section 79, the ambit is wider and includes obscenity and defamation. “You cannot go beyond,” he said. “Somebody has to find a problem with this content and then action follows. We can’t create a new law. We can’t expand the law. We can’t do anything beyond what the Constitution permits.”
On the Inter-Departmental Committee which currently hears complaints against registered news publishers, Krishnan said its scope would expand so that intermediaries also appear before it. He conceded this creates a structural problem. “When the intermediary appears, in certain cases you may not even have the original user appearing,” he said. “In that case the intermediary cannot direct or make those changes.” He said representations on this point had been received and would be examined before the rules are finalised.
On whether government advisories and SOPs would now carry the force of law for platforms, Krishnan said the intent was clarity, not expansion. The ministry planned to compile all existing advisories and directions into a single document so platforms know exactly what they are expected to follow. Anything inconsistent would be removed. “What we intend to do is put it all together, compile it, and then do it together,” he said. “It is in the nature of a clarification. The intent is that it always existed. The question of retrospectivity or prospectivity doesn’t arise.”
Krishnan said the consultation had produced a wide range of responses — including from groups that had asked for the rules to be withdrawn entirely, and others who raised concerns about the impact on advertising by small businesses.
He said all submissions would be considered before the rules are finalised, and pointed to past instances in sectors like online gaming where stakeholder feedback had led to modifications. “We are very open-minded and willing to listen to everyone,” he said. “The process of consultation we have held is a genuine process of consultation. We really want to hear and then finalise how exactly it needs to be done. You will eventually see that that is how it works out.”
On the deadline, he said most stakeholders had asked for a two-week extension. “We will see what will be appropriate,” he said. The 14 April deadline is expected to be extended.
(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)
Also Read: AI-driven scams & deepfakes targeting women on the rise—MeitY’s status report to HC