India Explained
ImplementedBJPNarendra Modi

IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

Rules under the IT Act set due-diligence duties for social media platforms and a three-tier oversight structure for digital news and streaming. A 2023 amendment on fact-checking was struck down by the Bombay High Court.

Social media rules, Misinformation

Facts

  • The Rules were notified on 25 February 2021 under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and replaced the 2011 intermediary guidelines. Part II is administered by the Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY) and Part III (digital media) by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting [1][2].
  • A 'significant social media intermediary' is one above a user threshold notified by the Centre, set at fifty lakh registered users; such intermediaries must appoint India-resident compliance, nodal and grievance officers and publish monthly compliance reports [1][4].
  • Messaging services of this size must enable identification of the first originator of a message when ordered, and make best efforts to use technology to detect certain categories of content [1].
  • Online news and current-affairs publishers and curated audio-visual content providers follow a code of ethics and a three-tier grievance structure: the publisher (15 days), a self-regulatory association (15 days) and an inter-departmental committee of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting [1].
  • Social media intermediaries were given three months to comply, to 26 May 2021; platforms that fail due diligence lose the safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act [2].
  • On 6 April 2023 MeitY amended Rule 3(1)(b)(v) so that platforms had to act on content about the 'business of the Central Government' identified as false by a government-established fact-check unit. On 31 January 2024 the Bombay High Court (Patel and Gokhale JJ) delivered a split verdict; on 20 September 2024 the tie-breaker judge, Chandurkar J, agreed with Patel J that the rule violated Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) and struck it down. The Supreme Court had stayed formation of the unit on 21 March 2024, and an appeal is reported pending [3][5].

Why

Reasons given by those who did it

  • PRS describes the Rules as prompted by concerns about child sexual abuse content, fake news, misuse of social media, weak accountability of digital platforms and the regulation of online publishers [1].
  • A MeitY press release of 25 February 2021, as reported, pointed to a July 2018 Rajya Sabha calling-attention motion on misuse of social media and fake news and said platforms should be made accountable under law [4].
  • On the fact-check amendment, the Union argued in the Bombay High Court that the rule was necessary to counter misinformation about central government business, was proportionate, left platforms able to issue disclaimers, and that misinformation is not protected speech [3].

Criticism of that reasoning

  • PRS noted that the Rules may exceed the delegated powers of the IT Act, that some content grounds are vague, and that publisher oversight sits with a Ministry rather than an independent body like the Press Council of India [1].
  • Patel J and Chandurkar J held the fact-check rule would make the executive the judge in its own cause; Gokhale J, dissenting, upheld it as a proportionate restriction within Article 19(2) [3][5].

Benefits and concerns

Benefits (2)

  • Platforms above the threshold must have India-based grievance and compliance officers and publish compliance reports, giving users and regulators a named point of contact.Rule requirements for significant social media intermediaries [1][4].
  • First regulatory framework for online news and streaming content with age classification and a complaints ladder.Three-tier grievance mechanism with 15-day timelines at each of the first two tiers [1].

Concerns (3)

  • Possible overreach beyond the parent Act and chilling effect from broad content categories.PRS commentary on delegated powers and vague terms [1].
  • Message traceability and privacy.PRS stated that traceability may require messaging services to hold more data on all users, and questioned proportionality under the Supreme Court's privacy standard [1].
  • Executive role in determining 'false' content about itself.Bombay High Court, 20 September 2024: 2023 amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) struck down by 2 judges to 1 [3][5].

Evidence points

−2.5
points, mean of two scorers (scale −25 to +25)
−4 to −1
range between the two scorers' totals
Medium confidence
1 criterion where scorers differ
ReachHow many people did the action materially affect?
Mean 0.0A 0B 0
Outcome evidenceDo official or independent data show the intended result (or its opposite), compared with the era baseline and peers?
Mean −0.5A 0B −1
Cost and sustainabilityIs the fiscal cost proportionate, and is the effect durable?
Mean −1.0A −1B −1
Process and rightsWas it made with debate, consultation and legal soundness, and did it respect rights and court rulings?
Mean −2.0A −2B −2
DeliveryWas it implemented as announced, on time and at scale?
Mean +1.0A +2B 0Scorers differ

Positive meanNegative meanScorer AScorer B

Scorer A. Created grievance and compliance structures but a 2023 amendment was struck down by the Bombay High Court and PRS questioned delegated powers and traceability.

Scorer B. PRS questioned the Rules' delegated powers and traceability proportionality, and the 2023 fact-check amendment was struck down by the Bombay High Court.

Context used when scoring

Era baseline
Before 2021 intermediaries were governed by the 2011 intermediary guidelines under Section 79 of the IT Act, with no statutory code for online news publishers.
Lag before outcomes show
3 years
Shocks considered
covid-2020
Uncertainty
Medium confidence. Scorer totals are −1 and −4. How uncertainty is shown.

In depth

The 2021 Rules link a platform’s legal immunity for user content to compliance with due-diligence duties, add obligations for large platforms, and bring online news publishers and streaming services under a code of ethics. The Union government presented the Rules as an accountability framework; critics, including PRS and several petitioners, questioned whether delegated legislation could go this far and whether Ministry-level oversight of digital news is compatible with press independence.

Parts of the Rules have been tested in court. The 2023 fact-check amendment was struck down by the Bombay High Court after a split verdict, with the judges reading Article 19(1)(a) and the proportionality test differently; the Supreme Court appeal is reported pending and its current status was not verified. Other challenges to the 2021 Rules, including in the Delhi High Court, were also reported but not reviewed in detail.

No official compliance or enforcement statistics were located, so the benefits above are described by design rather than measured outcome.

Sources

  2. IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (text)
    Tripura High Court / Government of India rules compilationPrimary
  3. Kunal Kamra v. Union of India
    Columbia Global Freedom of ExpressionMedia

Last reviewed .Report an error orchallenge a score.

Related actions

  • RepealedINCMedia & Information

    Press censorship during the Emergency (1975-1977)

    After the June 1975 Emergency proclamation the government imposed pre-publication censorship on newspapers; the 1976 press law was repealed in April 1977. The Shah Commission later reported on its use.

    Evidence points −10.5 (range −12.0 to −9.0)