Context:

• The blocking of a comedian’s (Pulkit Mani) video under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act highlights growing concerns over arbitrary online censorship in India.
• The episode reflects broader systemic issues arising from the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021, and their subsequent amendments.

Background - The IT Rules 2021:

• Notified (on February 25, 2021) through executive action, the repeated amendments of the rules have -
  • Expanded executive control over digital platforms.
  • Reduced procedural safeguards for users.
• Legal challenges:
  • Various High Courts (HCs) have issued interim orders (partial stays, selective validation).
  • Final constitutional validity remains pending, allowing continued enforcement.

Key Provisions and Recent Amendments:

• Arbitrary content takedown mechanism: Section 79(3)(b) allows content removal without clear reasoning, opportunity for hearing, and transparent procedure, violating the principles of natural justice.
• Shrinking timeframes for compliance:
  • The most recent (February 2026) amendment of the rules reduced the takedown timeline to 3 hours.
  • No exemptions for parody, satire, or artistic expression. This may have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) due to over-compliance by intermediaries.
• Expansion of State surveillance infrastructure:
  • The earlier (October 2025) changes strengthened Sahyog Portal, enabling over 35 State police officers and 8 Central agencies to order takedowns.
  • Parallel powers under Section 69A of IT Act provides some procedural safeguards, but rarely followed in practice.
• Overlapping and opaque legal framework:
  • In addition, there is also the power for the Union government to block websites under the IT Rules, Section 69A, executive advisories, and SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures).
  • Issues are lack of transparency, no clarity on authority responsible, and users unaware of grounds for censorship.
• Proposed amendments:
  • The proposed amendments highlight the need for expansion of regulation to Digital news media, and even on individual social media users commenting on current affairs.
  • Seen as indirect implementation of the Broadcasting Bill, 2024.
  • Other changes are giving legal force to unpublished advisories/SOPs, and removal of a 3-month cap on data retention for intermediaries.

Major Concerns/ Challenges:

• Violation of fundamental rights: Impacts Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech and Expression – restrictions may fail the tests of reasonableness and proportionality.
• Erosion of due process: No prior notice, hearing, and reasoned orders, undermining rule of law.
• Chilling effect on free speech: Fear of arbitrary action discourages satire, political commentary, and dissent.
• Executive overreach: Expansion via executive notifications, not parliamentary scrutiny, weakens separation of powers.
• Surveillance and privacy risks: Unlimited data retention - threat to Right to Privacy (recognized in Puttaswamy judgment), and potential misuse by state agencies.
• Regulatory uncertainty: Pending judicial review creates legal ambiguity, and uneven enforcement.
• Critically analysing government’s justification:
  • Government’s justification:
    • According to the MeitY, these measures are needed to combat Deepfakes, and AI-generated misinformation.
    • These projects India’s framework as a “global benchmark”.
  • Critical analysis: While misinformation is a genuine concern, measures appear disproportionate, lack institutional accountability, and risk of transforming regulation into censorship architecture.

Way Forward:

• Strengthening procedural safeguards: Mandatory notice, hearing, and reasoned orders, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.
• Parliamentary oversight: Limit executive rule-making, and major changes should pass through legislative scrutiny.
• Clear and transparent framework: Single, streamlined mechanism for content regulation. Public disclosure of takedown orders, and responsible authorities.
• Judicial clarity: Fast-track constitutional adjudication of IT Rules. Establish clear jurisprudence on digital free speech.
• Safeguards for creative expression: Explicit exemptions for satire, parody, and artistic content.
• Data protection alignment: Harmonize with Digital Personal Data Protection framework, and reinstate limits on data retention.

Conclusion:

• India stands at a critical juncture where the need to regulate digital platforms must be balanced against constitutional freedoms.
• The expanding scope of the IT Rules, 2021 risks tilting this balance towards unchecked executive power and systemic censorship.
• A transparent, accountable, and rights-based framework is essential to ensure that the digital public sphere remains a space for free expression, dissent, and democratic engagement—not control.