(New York) - The Indian government should immediately withdraw rules that would allow greater executive control over online content and further undermine privacy in the country, Human Rights Watch said today.

The Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules, 2026, would allow the government to treat ordinary social media users who comment on news and current affairs on par with registered news publishers, threatening to chill free expression and cause self-censorship. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has invited public comments on the draft rules by April 29, 2026.

"The Indian government has repeatedly amended information technology rules since 2021, with each amendment giving the authorities increasing control over online content," said Jayshree Bajoria, associate Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "The government claims these rules have been aimed at 'fake news' and hate speech but instead they have been used to target dissent."

The proposed rules emerge amid a significant increase in Indian government censorship in 2026. The authorities have directed social media platforms to block scores of online posts critical of the government, particularly Prime Minister Narendra Modi, without any transparent process.

India's central government already has the authority to issue blocking orders under section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and it has frequently used such orders to target content that is critical rather than unlawful. The IT Act also allows several central ministries and state governments to issue blocking orders under section 79(3)(b).

The exact number of blocking requests is unknown because the government issues them in secret, leaving users in the dark about why their posts were blocked and without an opportunity to contest the decision. Since February, X has informed scores of users that their posts were blocked in India, many of them satire or posts from opposition politicians. X also suspended several accounts, mainly for posting content critical of or mocking the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party-led government or Prime Minister Modi. Transparency reporting from Meta indicates an exponential increase in content restricted on Instagram and Facebook in India in response to government orders for each reporting period between January 2024 and December 2025.

In the landmark 2015 case Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court laid down some procedural safeguards. The central government has to provide reasons for a blocking order in writing and only an officer at least at a joint secretary-level can issue orders. The authorities are required to inform the affected user, if identifiable, and to give them an opportunity to respond. A review committee has to review the orders. And intermediaries or internet companies need to comply with takedown notices only if they receive "actual knowledge" of unlawful content through a court order or government notification.

Instead of complying with the court ruling, the central government has introduced a steady stream of amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011, creating a regulatory framework that systematically enables censorship, Human Rights Watch said. The intermediary guidelines lay out requirements that internet companies must meet for so-called safe harbor protections, providing them immunity from liability for third-party content on their platforms.

In 2021, the government amended the rules to significantly expand their scope to include digital news services and curated video streaming sites even though the IT Act did not include them. The amendments also introduced a traceability requirement, which would compromise end-to-end encryption, and lacked adequate procedural safeguards for user information or takedown requests made by law enforcement agencies.

In 2023, the government further amended the rules to establish a fact-checking body, which would decide whether content posted about the government was fake, false, or misleading, in effect empowering itself to be the arbiter of truth online. In March 2024, the Supreme Court put a stay on establishing such a unit. Courts also put stays on the compliance requirements for digital news media under the "Code of Ethics" framework and establishment of a three-tier grievance redress mechanism. The Madras High Court stated that the "oversight mechanism to control the media by the Government may rob the media of its independence and the fourth pillar of democracy may not at all be there."

In October 2025, the central government further amended the rules, formalizing the union Home Ministry's Sahyog portal, a centralized platform that allows a number of agencies and state governments to issue takedown notices with little transparency and even fewer safeguards. This parallel mechanism, distinct from those discussed above, would soon become "the primary censorship tool," says the New Delhi-based digital rights group Internet Freedom Foundation, because it is "procedurally simpler, faster, and routed through an online platform, while lacking hearings, independent committee review, or public disclosure."

In February 2026, through yet another amendment, the government shortened the response time granted to platforms for removing "unlawful" content from 36 hours to 3 hours.

Now, under the proposed rules, instead of a court order or a government notification, the intermediaries would be required to comply with a range of executive-issued clarifications, advisories, directions, standard operating procedures, codes of practice, and guidelines, to retain their safe harbor protection under section 79 of the IT Act.

Under the proposed rules, ordinary social media users who comment on current affairs would be required to comply with the same "Code of Ethics" framework as formal publishers and establish a multitiered self-regulation mechanism. They also empower an executive body, an "Inter-Departmental Committee," to effectively act as a censorship committee, to review content referred to it by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and recommend actions ranging from an apology from the content's creator to taking it down.

Companies have a responsibility to respect human rights under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Yet the risk of losing market access or safe harbor protections, combined with shorter timelines and increasing number of requests to remove user-generated content means companies are likely to censor legitimate expression, Human Rights Watch said.

"People should be able to post a photo of a broken streetlight, share a joke, or seek basic accountability from government officials without fear of government action," Bajoria said. "The proposed rules would increase government authority to stifle independent voices even as there are significant concerns over its growing crackdown on independent media, human rights groups, and peaceful critics."

Source: Human Rights Watch