It is said, “A right is not what someone gives you; it’s what no one can take from you.” Well, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026 is all set to take away a huge chunk of press freedom, constitutional guarantees, and civil liberties in this country. Notified by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and effective from February 20, 2026, the amendments facilitate the tightening of state control over digital content. However, this constriction is being applied under the noble objective of combating misinformation and regulating synthetic media. It is a clear example of executive overreach and growing authoritarianism that directly impacts the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The most controversial provision of the new IT rules is the drastic reduction in takedown timelines. The bill mandates that social media platforms remove content deemed illegal within just three hours of receiving an order from a court or the “appropriate government,” compared to the earlier 24-36-hour window. Such a miniscule timeframe leaves little to no room for legal scrutiny, due process, or meaningful contestation. Besides that, the new IT rules introduce stringent requirements for labelling AI-generated or “synthetic” content (media that appears indistinguishable from real persons or events).
While regulating “deepfakes” is a genuine necessity, the new law opens the doors for carrying out witch-hunts against the media houses and content providers who are openly critical of the government and its policies. If passed, the new laws threaten intermediaries with the loss of “safe harbour” protections under Section 79 of the IT Act if they fail to comply with the new provisions. This will expose them to legal liability for user-generated content. Platforms will thus tend to over-comply, paving the way for pre-emptive censorship.
Expanding the State’s Grip on Speech
The main objection to the new rules is the misuse or transformation of regulatory safeguards into instruments of control. The 2026 amendments are not the first. In 2023, the government had introduced the Fact Check Unit (FCU), which allowed the government to identify “false or misleading” information. In 2025, amendments were made related to monthly reviews of takedown orders. They were coyly labelled as accountability mechanisms. However, they were in reality provisions that surreptitiously gave the government the power to monitor, flag, and remove content.
The new rules are a real challenge to the constitutionally guaranteed “freedom of expression” as their jurisdiction have now been extended beyond traditional publishers to include “users who are not publishers,” such as independent journalists, influencers, and podcasters sharing news-related content. This expansion erases the distinction between institutional media and individual expression. Hence, going forward ordinary citizens shall be within the ambit of a stringent code of ethics and face the ire of the government if it finds any content that does not suit its narrative or is very critical of the policies of the government.
This is bound to create a kind of self-censorship because of the fear of takedown, account suspension, or legal consequences. Compounding the problem is the lack of transparency. Reports indicate that users often receive no prior notice, no detailed reasons, and no opportunity for hearing before their content is removed. The Supreme Court of India in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India had emphasised procedural fairness in content blocking. The new laws will now weaken that fairness.
Architecture of Censorship
The design of this increased way of censoring content is quite concerning. The government seeks a Sahyog portal for doing this job, which enables multiple agencies to issue takedown notices. There is limited transparency and helps fast and centralised censorship. Further, the proposed amendments allow the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to issue takedown notices directly to individual users. This is a clear and direct extension of state power from platforms to citizens.
The Internet Freedom Foundation has described this as a “massive expansion of unconstitutional censorship.” It has warned that the procedural safeguards embedded in existing law will be severely impacted. Where is the question of judicial intervention, since the compliance time has been reduced to merely three hours? In essence, whatever is not palatable to the government will go down is less than 180 minutes. This will sound the death knell for content based on anti-establishment satire, criticism, or political commentary. This will be backdoor narrative control and kill the spirit of dissent and the desire to have and present alternative views and ideas regarding issues that concern regarding issues that concern power, accountability, and the fundamental rights of the people. Mandatory labelling and disclosure of AI-generated content, platform-level verification mechanisms linked to identity disclosure obligations raise concerns around privacy and personal information and data.
Journalists Unite Against Executive Overreach
Representatives from the Editors’ Guild of India, DIGIPUB, Indian Women’s Press Corps, Network of Women in Media, and the Delhi Union of Journalists gathered at the Press Club of India on April 11, 2026 and collectively demanded the unconditional withdrawal of the draft amendments. One of their resolutions demands that “The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology would withdraw the Draft of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules, 2026 in totality.”
Another resolution says, “The Government of India must strictly follow the procedural safeguards laid down under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act, 2000), before issuing blocking/takedown orders.” It also states, “The compression of timeline for intermediaries from 36 hours to three hours by amending the IT Rules, 2021, in February 2026, for taking down content must be withdrawn. Such executive diktats border on contempt of the Supreme Court, which read down Section 79 for strengthening safe harbour in Shreya Singhal Vs Union of India.”
George Washington warned, “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” The new IT rules must be opposed lest our freedom of speech be taken away. What will follow next is the unspeakable.