New Delhi: With many stakeholders flagging a lack of clarity in the draft amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, the government is considering extending the consultation period.
Multiple people ThePrint spoke to said those at the meeting were concerned about user liability, safe harbour protections and expanding government powers proposed in the draft.
The roughly 50-minute closed-door meeting was convened by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on Tuesday afternoon and chaired by secretary S. Krishnan.
Representatives from platforms including Meta, Snapchat, YouTube, Google and ShareChat were present, along with industry bodies such as US-India Strategic Partnership Forum, Indian Governance and Policy Project and The Quantum Hub. An official from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) was also present.
The draft amendments, released on 30 March for public consultation, propose changes across both intermediary due diligence and digital media regulation. They introduce a new Rule 3(4), requiring intermediaries to comply with government-issued directions, advisories, codes of practice and guidelines, and link such compliance to safe harbour protections under Section 79 of the IT Act.
The amendments also plan to expand the scope of digital media framework to potentially cover intermediaries and users who share news and current affairs content, and allow the government to refer “matters” directly to the Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC), widening the scope of content oversight.
According to several people ThePrint spoke to, a key issue raised repeatedly during the meeting was the lack of clarity in distinguishing between users, intermediaries and publishers.
“One was the differentiation between intermediaries and users. That was a question that was brought up multiple times by intermediaries in the room,” said a source at the meeting. “There was also the question of publishers being dragged into the domain of intermediaries.”
The overlap created uncertainty on applicability. “In some places, it’s not exactly clear what applies to an intermediary, what applies to a user,” the source said, adding that the secretary acknowledged the concern and indicated that the government could revisit this aspect.
On the consultation timeline, the secretary indicated that “one week” extension would “definitely” be provided, while leaving open the possibility of additional time after stakeholders sought a longer window.
According to multiple people ThePrint spoke to, several issues—particularly around user liability, scope of powers and enforcement—remained unresolved at the end of the consultations.
Intermediaries also raised concerns on safe harbour protections, particularly whether non-compliance with government communications could lead to loss of protection.
“There were questions on whether any written direction from MeitY now will count towards taking away of safe harbour if someone doesn’t comply,” another person said.
In response, the secretary referred to Section 79(2)(c), stating that intermediaries are required to follow due diligence guidelines issued by the government, and clarified that these would include “guidelines, directions, and whatever else is stated in the rules now”.
The secretary also suggested that the government could consider consolidating such directions. “Maybe to make it easier for industry, we can look at compiling all of those,” one of the sources cited above quoted the secretary.
Most of the discussion remained focused on intermediary compliance, with limited clarity on how the rules would apply to individual users.
The question of whether a code of ethics would extend to users was raised towards the end of the meeting. “That was brought up right at the end… where someone suggested that the code of ethics should not apply to individual users,” a source at the meeting said.
While the secretary agreed that publishers carry a different level of responsibility, he said, “The power of technology now gives everyone the ability to comment on news or current affairs,” and that “that power comes with a certain responsibility”.
“He didn’t directly say that the code of ethics is going to apply to users, but the import of his words seemed to suggest so,” the source added.
Questions were also raised on the role of the MIB, particularly in relation to content regulation and the IDC. The MIB official present in the room reiterated existing processes. “He said that the infrastructure already exists… and essentially it’s that same process that’s going to be followed,” a source said, adding that no detailed clarification was given on what kind of content would fall within its expanded scope.
Participants also flagged lack of clarity in provisions allowing the ministry to refer matters to the IDC. “It’s not clarified what kind of matters,” a source at the meeting said, adding that this question was raised but not answered.
A second stakeholder consultation with civil society organisations, including MediaNama and Internet Freedom Foundation, was held immediately after this meeting.
Following that discussion, MediaNama founder Nikhil Pahwa said on X that the meeting was “treated as a compliance exercise with no intent to explain or answer questions we have raised.”
He said he told the secretary that “the government’s intent behind the IT Rules consultation is evident in the impact they are having—of mass censorship,” adding, “this is an infrastructure for mass censorship.”
Pahwa said several issues he raised were not addressed, including lack of transparency in takedown and blocking actions, absence of accountability mechanisms for users, and the expansion of government powers through the rules. He also said the amendments “mirror the withdrawn Broadcast Bill, with same intent, different form,” and flagged concerns around the IDC and consultation timelines.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)