
The Union government on Wednesday amended the 2021 Information Technology Rules to define the authorities that can seek the removal of content posted online.
The earlier version of the rules said that any “appropriate government or its agency” can direct social media platforms to take down content.
The amended rules say that social media platforms can be directed to remove content or block its access through an order of a court of competent jurisdiction or through an intimation by a government official not below the rank of joint secretary or director.
If the take-down notice is from the police, it must be issued by an officer not below the rank of deputy inspector general.
Additionally, the Union government mandated that such notices have to be “a reasoned intimation, in writing”.
In March, social media company X moved Karnataka High Court challenging the way the Centre and the state governments were issuing orders to take down or block content posted on its platform under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act.
Digipub, an association of independent news organisations and journalists, had also moved the court supporting the plea by X.
The company in its plea had argued that the notices for removal of content often “lacked proper reasoning” and are also procedurally not compliant with the Information Technology Act.
Under Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Rules, social media platforms are required to remove content within 36 hours of receiving a court order or a government notification.
The High Court dismissed X’s plea in September, stating that social media platforms cannot be given anarchic freedom. X is preparing to challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court.
X had argued in the High Court that the take-down notices were being issued by the authorities without detailed reasoning and that the platform was forced to comply with it in 36 hours.
The Union government, through this amendment on Wednesday, also introduced a review mechanism for the issuance of notices ordering the removal of online content.
The Centre and the state governments have to appoint an official not below the rank of secretary to review the notices once every month to ensure that “such intimations are necessary, proportionate, and consistent with the IT Act”.
The amendment also mandates that the notices issued by the authorities should “clearly specify the legal basis and statutory provision invoked, the nature of the unlawful act, and the specific URL, identifier or other electronic location of the information, date or communication link required to be removed or disabled”.
Amendments entrench opacity, says advocacy group
Advocacy group Internet Freedom Foundation said that the amended rules cannot meaningfully be described as safeguards, and contended that instead, they “entrench opacity and weaken procedural safeguards”.
The foundation said that the 2025 rules grant a greater number of authorisations to various government departments that can directly issue takedown orders, making them the “primary censorship tool”.
“This is due to their design, being procedurally simpler, faster, and routed through an online platform, while lacking hearings, independent committee review, or public disclosure,” the Internet Freedom Foundation said in a statement. “Such a design will predictably inflate the volume of takedown requests and diminish the high threshold required to issue takedown decisions.”
This will aggravate over-removal and lead to chilling effects on free expression, the organisation contended.
The Internet Freedom Foundation noted that the new rules have been notified directly in the gazette and will take effect on November 15 without any draft being placed for public comment.
This approach, it said, departs from the Union Government’s Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy from 2014, which requires ministries to proactively publish draft rules for at least 30 days, along with an explanatory note.
📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC
Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting