Context: The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has amended the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 to introduce new safeguards and senior-level oversight in online content blocking under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000.
Key Highlights of the Amendment
Who Can Now Issue Blocking Notices
Only senior officials are now authorised to issue content removal or flagging notices to platforms such as YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), and Instagram.
Authorised officers include:
- Joint Secretary (JS) or equivalent officer at the Centre/State.
- Director-level officers, where no JS exists.
- DIG or above, in police departments, specifically authorised.
Each order must clearly specify:
- Legal basis and statutory provision
- Nature of the unlawful act
- Exact URL/digital location of content
A monthly review of all such orders will be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Secretary (e.g., IT Secretary or State Home Secretary).
Rule 3(1)(d): The Legal Basis
Under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, the government can flag content that violates Indian law.
If platforms fail to act, they may lose “safe harbour” protection—their legal immunity from user-generated content liability.
Such notices act as warnings, not direct takedown orders.
Why the Change Was Needed
In some states, junior police officers (like Sub-Inspectors or ASIs) had been issuing blocking notices, raising concerns of misuse and lack of accountability.
The amendment ensures that only senior officers can exercise this power, promoting transparency, due process, and uniformity across states.
Background: X vs. Government Case
Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) had legally challenged the government’s use of Rule 3(1)(d), calling it arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The Karnataka High Court, however, upheld the government’s authority.
Officials clarified that the new amendment is not a reaction to X’s case but does address its core concern by defining clear authority and procedure.
Section 79(3)(b) vs Section 69A
| Provision | Purpose | Key Feature |
|---|---|---|
| Section 79(3)(b) | Removal of unlawful content | Platforms lose “safe harbour” if they fail to act |
| Section 69A | Blocking content on grounds of national security, integrity, or defence | Direct blocking by government agencies |
Significance
The amendments mark a shift toward responsible digital governance, ensuring that content blocking powers are exercised with legal clarity, senior oversight, and procedural accountability.
They balance freedom of expression with the need to curb misuse and maintain lawful online spaces.