(Easy ALIGHT MOTION Mobile Video Editing DAY 21 Beginner’s Guide to Mobile Video Editing : Mobile video editing is like a superpower these days. Whether you want to create Instagram Reels, start a YouTube channel, or simply capture your memories, you no longer need a bulk computer)
The government has proposed sweeping rules that will essentially place “news and current affairs content hosted by non-publisher users”, for instance, influencers who post news content, under the ambit of IT rules and specifically the ministry of information and broadcasting
The draft introduces a key change: for the purposes of Rules 14, 15 and 16, the framework will now apply not just to intermediaries, but also to news and current affairs content hosted or shared by users who are not publishers.
In effect, this means that a viral explainer video, a political thread, or a news-style post by an influencer could be examined through the same oversight process as a digital news report.
While a senior government official told Moneycontrol said that this was just a measure brought in to streamline news-related workload in the government (mandating MIB for everything news-related, as opposed to MeitY having a say in such matters), not everyone is convinced.
Civil society groups such as the Internet Freedom Foundation have issued an SOS on social media on the draft rules, accusing the government of sneak-introducing measures that have dire impact on freedom of expression and freedom of press.
Several other bodies and industry executives that Moneycontrol spoke also evoked the same concerns.
However, this is not the only new measure that the draft amendments seek to bring in. The amendments also say that government communciation like advisories, directions, will have to be mandatorily complied by intermediaries. Earlier advisories issued by ministries were non-binding in nature.
Here’s what the provisions mean
Broadly, what do the new draft amendments to IT Rules propose?
Broadly, the amendments propose three things –
- Expand the scope of oversight rules to include user-generated news content
- Make government advisories and similar communications binding on intermediaries
- Widen the remit of the existing oversight mechanism to examine a broader set of content.
Can influencers be sent blocking orders under the amendment?
Yes. By bringing user-generated news content into the scope of Rules 14, 15 and 16, influencers can indeed be issued blocking orders under Sec 69A of the IT Act.
In practice, this means complaints against such content can be escalated to the Inter-Departmental Committee, which can recommend action.
Those recommendations are typically directed at intermediaries, which remain responsible for acting on them. But because the rules also refer to giving “the entity which has created/hosted the content” a hearing, stakeholders believe this could extend to content creators as well.
Garima Saxena, Programme Manager, The Dialogue, said, “A major change is to rule 8. This is a substantial expansion as it appears to bring a category of non-publisher user speech into the Part III oversight machinery… By extending the Part III machinery to non-publisher user content that nonetheless qualifies as “news and current affairs”, the draft could sweep in citizen journalism, political commentary, creator explainers, and other issue-based public-interest speech.”
What else can influencers be directed to do by the IDC?
Under Rules 14 to 16, the government’s oversight mechanism—through the Inter-Departmental Committee — can examine content and recommend a range of actions.
They include –
- Warning, censoring, admonishing or reprimanding the entity
- Requiring an apology by the entity
- Providing disclaimers to content
- Delete or modify content “for preventing incitement” to public order
Why was this brought in?
Two senior government officials Moneycontrol spoke to said that the move was brought in to streamline Allocation of Business between the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), and the MIB.
“I&B has taken a view that anyone who posts news and current affairs needs to be covered by I&B themselves,” said one government official.
Former Prasar Bharati CEO Shashi Shekhar Vempati framed the move as an attempt to address a regulatory gap.
“With the proliferation of user-generated news and current affairs content on platforms such as YouTube and X etc there has been an anomalous situation where mainstream media outlets are editorially accountable through the various rules and mechanisms while user generated news and current affairs content had practically no editorial accountability. Addressing this anomaly was long overdue given how such content has been misused to disseminate fake news and false narratives especially during elections to undermine the integrity of the electoral process,” he told Moneycontrol.
What are the major criticisms that are being aired against this proposal?
Civil society groups such as the Internet Freedom Foundation argue that the amendment effectively expands government oversight over online speech without resolving underlying legal challenges to the existing framework.
The IFF in a statement noted that parts of the IT Rules framework such as the Code of Ethics and grievance redressal system were stayed by the Bombay High Court as it is prima facie violative of free speech protections.
The Madras High Court also observed that “an oversight mechanism to control the media by the government may rob the media of its independence.
“The expansion of Rule 8(1) to cover Rules 14, 15, and 16 is an attempt to expand the blocking powers of MIB to both intermediaries and users who are not “publishers” but post news and current affairs content online. The IDC can now examine “matters” relating to user-generated news content on intermediary platforms without the Code of Ethics framework having been adjudicated as constitutional; the government effectively obtains the content oversight machinery that three High Courts found illegal, through a different procedural door,” the IFF said.
Are platforms also concerned about this proposal?
Industry executives say the language of the amendment creates uncertainty about the role and liability of intermediaries.
One executive told Moneycontrol, “Rule 14(4) talks about the entity which has created/hosted the content getting a fair chance of hearing, therefore it seems that the intermediary and the offending news and current affairs content creators will be both entitled to a hearing and variety of recommendations by the Interdepartmental Committee.”
“It further seems that the Committee can recommend that the intermediary can be reprimanded, censured, admonished for user actions,” the executive said.
“It almost creates a Schrodinger’s cat situation out of an intermediary status. The language may have to be relooked to possibly address the right set of obligations for an intermediary in consonance with the statute,” the executive added.
Does the new mandate make complying with advisories mandatory? If yes, why?
Yes, the draft introduces a provision that requires intermediaries to comply with government advisories, directions and similar communications as part of their due diligence obligations.
A senior government official said this was introduced after industry sought clarity on the status of advisories. “An advisory by the government has to be complied. You cannot say that you cannot comply with it. That’s why this was brought in,” a senior government official said.
What are some of the major concerns that are being raised regarding this provision?
Policy experts argue that making advisories binding could expand executive powers beyond what the law currently permits.
Meghna Bal, Director of Esya Centre, said, “The Ministry of Electronics and IT has regularly issued “advisories” under the IT Act – even though the law itself does not contain any provision that empowers it to do so. These advisories typically dealt with emerging subject matter related to digital governance, but tended to be reactionary, and sometimes poorly thought out.”
“For instance, one advisory issued by the MeitY had the effect of creating a licensing regime for AI systems. This was later withdrawn because, of course, unimplementable, unconstitutional, and went well beyond the purview of what the parent Act, the IT Act, 2000, permitted. Importantly, this and other advisories were non-binding. This rule is unlikely to stand up to even the most perfunctory test of constitutional or legal scrutiny, so it is uncertain why they have brought it out,” Bal said.
The Internet Freedom Foundation added that making advisories binding could dilute safeguards set by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015). They said that the judgment requires content takedowns to be based on court orders or government notifications, not informal directions