Accountability in Content Regulation

Context

1. The Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has proposed amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 to ensure greater accountability and transparency in how content notices are issued to social media platforms.
2. The move comes after instances where junior-level police officers were issuing content-blocking notices, and amid debates on government oversight vs. digital freedom.
3. These amendments will likely come into force from November 15, 2025.

Background: Understanding the Legal Framework

What is “Safe Harbour” and Why Does It Matters?

1. “Safe harbour” means social media platforms are not held legally liable for what users post.
2. It allows free flow of expression online while ensuring companies are not punished for user behaviour.
3. However, if the government flags specific content under the IT Rules, safe harbour no longer applies, and the platform can be made accountable like a publisher.

What Has the Government Changed?

Key Amendments Proposed:

1. Only senior officers can issue such notices:
   1. Joint Secretary (JS) or above at the Central level.
   2. Deputy Inspector General (DIG) or above in the States.
2. Each notice must now:
   1. Clearly specify the legal provision, reason, and exact URL or post.
   2. Clarify that it is a warning, not an automatic takedown order.
3. All notices under Rule 3(1)(d) will be reviewed monthly by a Secretary-level officer (IT Secretary at Centre; IT/Home Secretary in States).
4. A “reasoned intimation” must accompany every notice to increase transparency.

Why Was This Needed?

1. Overreach by lower-level officials: In some states, even Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors were sending content notices.
2. Lack of clarity: Rules earlier mentioned “appropriate Government or its agency”, without specifying any official rank.
3. Need for accountability: To prevent misuse or arbitrary censorship, and ensure due process in digital governance.
4. Balance between regulation and freedom: The move attempts to show that government action will be “responsible and traceable.”

Legal and Policy Significance

1. The change follows but is not directly linked to the case filed by social media platform X (formerly Twitter), which challenged the use of Rule 3(1)(d) as arbitrary.
2. The Karnataka High Court upheld the Centre’s authority to issue such notices but emphasised the need for procedural fairness.
3. The amendment helps align India’s IT framework with global norms of platform accountability and transparency.

Challenges and Way Forward

Broader Implications

1. For Governance: Strengthens institutional accountability and standardises content regulation.
2. For Social Media Firms: Brings clarity but also increases compliance obligations.
3. For Citizens: Aims to protect against arbitrary censorship, but needs vigilance to ensure rights are not curtailed.
4. For Digital India Mission: Balances freedom of expression with responsible digital governance.

Conclusion

The amendment reflects an evolving phase of India’s digital regulatory ecosystem, one that seeks to balance state accountability, platform responsibility, and citizen rights. However, real accountability will depend not just on seniority of officers but on transparency, procedural fairness, and independent oversight. In a democracy, content moderation must never become content control, the rule of law must remain the guiding principle of India’s digital governance.