India’s proposed digital rules raise fresh concerns over free speech

The Indian government has proposed expanding its regulatory framework to cover a broader range of online news-related voices, including influencers and podcasters on platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and X.

Last week, India's Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) proposed amendments to the country's IT rules, which regulate digital media content. The changes would bring "users who are not publishers" but share content related to "news and current affairs" under the same code of ethics currently applicable to registered news publishers.

Experts say the move could significantly expand the government's authority over news-related content shared by ordinary users, including independent journalists and podcasters.

Under the proposed amendments, social media platforms would also be required to comply with government orders and guidelines if they wish to retain "safe harbour" protection — the legal immunity that shields them from liability for user-generated content.

Critics warn of censorship risks

The proposed changes have raised alarm among digital rights activists and independent news creators, who argue that the rules could lead to near-total compliance with state-led censorship on social media platforms.

They also warn that the provisions could be used to target critics and suppress dissent.

The government, however, says the amendments are intended to strengthen the existing IT rules and help curb fake news, hate speech and deepfakes. It has invited public feedback on the proposal until 14 April.

Despite these assurances, critics remain doubtful about the government's stated intentions.

Akash Banerjee, who runs the YouTube channel The Deshbhakt with more than six million subscribers, said the proposed rules could create a climate of fear and push many creators toward self-censorship.

"Interestingly, despite the many laws regulating online content, hate speech and fake news haven't reduced in the country. Meanwhile, posts that are critical of the government — even if they're satirical — are increasingly being blocked or removed," Akash said.

Authorities reject this allegation.

Recent takedowns deepen concerns

Last month, X blocked around a dozen accounts, many known for posting satire about the government, in response to orders issued under Section 69A of India's IT Act.

Kumar Nayan, whose X account @Nehr_who? has about 242,000 followers, told the BBC that he received neither prior notice nor any explanation for the block.

Nayan said his account was restored this week following a court order, although 10 posts remain blocked in India pending review by a government-appointed panel.

The BBC said it had reviewed the posts, all of which either mocked Prime Minister Narendra Modi or criticised his Bharatiya Janata Party government.

"No reasonable person will say that these posts threaten national security or disturb communal harmony. They are just funny posts, so why does the government want them taken down?" Nayan said.

He added that by challenging the order in court, his identity had become public, raising concerns about his safety.

"I have lost the anonymity offered by social media, which is a double-edged sword but also protects whistleblowers and critics from threats and harassment," he said.

Nayan has since moved home after his identity was revealed.

The BBC said it had sent a list of questions to MeitY.

Experts cite growing regulatory reach

Recent US government report noted that, since 2021, US social media firms have faced an increasing number of takedown requests involving content and user accounts linked to issues that appeared politically motivated.

Nikhil Pahwa said the proposed amendments would further strengthen what he described as the government's existing "infrastructure for mass censorship".

In an article co-written with Apar Gupta, founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation, and published in The Times of India, Pahwa argued that successive amendments to the IT rules since 2021 have steadily expanded government control over online content while reducing users' rights.

According to the authors, a 2021 amendment brought digital news outlets under government oversight, while a 2025 change strengthened the federal home ministry's Sahyog portal — a centralised platform that allows multiple agencies to issue takedown notices to social media companies with limited transparency and fewer safeguards.

They said the portal functions as a parallel mechanism for content removal, separate from the federal government's blocking powers under Section 69A of the IT Act.

The IT rules were amended again in early 2026, reducing the compliance window for social media firms to act on government blocking orders from 36 hours to just three hours, significantly limiting the scope for legal review.

"Keen to preserve market access in India, platforms comply. Citizens whose speech is restricted receive no notice, no hearings, no reasons, and neither government nor platforms can be held accountable by a legal system being outpaced by regulatory agility," Pahwa wrote.

Government defends proposed framework

MeitY Secretary S Krishnan defended both the existing IT rules and the newly proposed amendments, saying the ministry's guidelines are consistent with the law and the Constitution.

He told the BBC that there needed to be a common policy or framework to govern news and current affairs content, as such content is now shared not only by publishers but also by ordinary citizens.

Sandeep Singh, whose X account @ActivistSandeep with more than 100,000 followers was among those blocked in March, said he began posting critical views after feeling that mainstream media was biased in favour of the BJP.

At the time of writing, Singh's X account remained blocked in India.

"I stand for the truth, and blocking my accounts or posts will not stop me from continuing to speak truth to power," Singh told the BBC.

Nayan said that while he has the resources to challenge blocking orders in court, many others may not be willing or able to go through the same process to restore their content.

"In a democracy, people should have the freedom to post what they want, within reasonable limits, without fear. India is a democracy, so why has it become so difficult to do so?" he said.