IT rules have made the internet less free

It is unfortunate that demands for accountability have been repeatedly deflected and changes to the IT Rules have been framed as a response to deepfakes and AI-generated misinformation.

Pulkit Mani, a 26-year-old stand-up comic, is one of the many young Indians who find humour in a world caught up in cycles of violence, failing to provide safety and hope. If you accessed social media last month, his short video was impossible to ignore. On March 18, it was blocked on Instagram under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, for which Pulkit has only received a terse notice from the social media platform. The Centre has not told him why his video is illegal, nor has he been given the opportunity of a hearing or a reasoned order. His experience is typical of what has been an alarming rise in government-directed censorship online.

This power resides in the Information Technology Rules, 2021, issued on February 25, 2021 through an executive order and then expanded continuously through notification. Each amendment has expanded executive power and undermined user rights. Its provisions have been challenged in different high courts, which have granted interim orders restraining enforcement, striking some down as unconstitutional, upholding some. However, all these cases remain pending final legal determination. The high threshold in a successful constitutional challenge and pendency have afforded the opportunity for the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to continuously expand censorial and surveillance powers.

The IT Rules, 2021, were earlier expanded on February 10, compressing take-down timelines to three hours. The amendments did not contain any exemptions for parody and satire, and in many ways rekindled a fact-checking power for AI-generated content. Before that, on October 10, 2025, insertions in the Act gave support to the Sahyog censorship portal, in which now more than 35 state police officers and eight central agencies can order content takedowns. In addition, there is also the power for the Union government to block websites under Section 69A, which offers some modicum of procedural fairness. However, none of them are being followed. Multiple, overlapping legal powers for censorship are being used. A user does not know why or by whom they have been censored. Evidence for this is found aplenty over the past three weeks with notices of account restrictions and content takedowns on social media.

The situation is about to get much worse. On March 30, MeitY proposed further amendments that include expanding the censorship powers over digital news media platforms to any social media user who comments on current affairs and politics. Not only is this dangerous, but it is also a camouflage for bringing in regulations proposed under the Broadcasting Bill, 2024, which stalled due to widespread public outrage. Beyond this, MeitY wants to make informal instruments not grounded within the parent statute, such as advisories and SOPs, have legal force without the need to publish them. Another change is that the mandatory data retention timelines for intermediaries, which also include our online email providers or ISPs, will no longer be capped at three months. To riff on Kanye, “no one government should have all that power”.

It is unfortunate that Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw has repeatedly deflected demands for accountability and has framed changes to the IT Rules as a response to deepfakes and AI-generated misinformation. At the AI Impact Summit in February, he called India’s approach a “global benchmark”. Clearly, the country has a long way to go towards that.

The writer is an advocate and founder director, Internet Freedom Foundation