If calibrated carefully, the Information Technology Rules Second Amendment 2026 can strike a workable balance and strengthen accountability without undermining innovation or free expression.
Share
Vaibhav Gaggar and Kamya Wahal
India’s digital ecosystem has grown rapidly, and online platforms now play a central role in how people communicate and access information. This has also brought new challenges around accountability and online harms, and the existing regulatory frameworks need to evolve accordingly. In this context, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology’s proposed changes to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, published on March 30, 2026, mark a step to fill procedural gaps in India’s digital regulatory framework. The stated objective of the draft amendments is to strengthen compliance by intermediaries with clarifications, advisories, and directions issued by the Ministry under Part II and to enhance the effectiveness of regulatory oversight of content regulation mechanisms under Part III relating to digital media.
First, is the clarification of data retention obligations under Rules 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(h). The proposed amendment clears that the Rules’ retention requirements are in addition to obligations under other applicable laws. This removes the ambiguity that has, at times, allowed intermediaries to adopt fragmented or minimalistic compliance approaches. The IT Act does not allow digital platforms to work alone. They must also follow criminal procedure laws, financial regulations, and rules that apply only to their industry. In that sense, the clarification makes sense and is needed. Importantly, the amendment concerns retention, not access. Disclosure of such data continues to remain subject to legal procedures and statutory protections. Although a blanket saving clause of this nature may be read as instigating, overlapping or even indefinite retention of user data by intermediaries simply because various legal instruments impose such requirements without reference to necessity purpose limitation or proportionality. A clarification to alleviate such concerns may be issued, if the concern arises in due course.
Second, is the suggested addition of Rule 3(4), which makes advisories, clarifications, and standard operating procedures (SOPs) issued by the Ministry into binding obligations as due diligence under Section 79 of the IT Act. Section 79 of the rules had given the intermediaries a conditional “Safe Harbour” from liability for third-party content, provided they observe due diligence and do not actively participate in unlawful activity. This acted as a shield to keep intermediaries from having to keep an eye on huge amounts of user-generated content. The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India said that “safe harbour” has traditionally protected intermediaries from being held responsible for third-party content as long as they act on "actual knowledge" of illegal activity. The doctrine has been very important in keeping platforms as neutral places for information to flow.
But the digital ecosystem has changed a lot since then. Platforms are no longer just passive intermediaries. Their size and ability to use algorithms have changed the way online harms happen and how they affect people. In this situation, a model that only reacts to court orders or formal notices seems increasingly ineffective. Rule 3(4) fills this gap by making governance more flexible. It doesn't get rid of the need for legal orders to take down content; instead, it tries to guide how platforms act as a whole through executive instruments. There are valid worries about possible overreach, but the fact that safe harbour is conditional has always meant that due diligence standards can change. To make things more legitimate, it would be smart for these kinds of advisories and SOPs to come with measures of transparency, like publication, a well- thought-out reason, and, if possible, consultation with stakeholders.
Third, the amendment proposes to alter the proviso to Rule 8.1 so that for Rules 14, 15, and 16 of Part III will apply not only to publishers but also to intermediaries and to news and current affairs content published on the computer resources of intermediaries by users who are not publishers. The difference between “user” and “publisher” is no longer clear. This is a significant expansion in the scope of the digital media oversight framework, which was earlier primarily oriented towards organised publishers of news and curated content. The amendment aims to make sure that serious rule violations can be dealt with no matter where they come from by including this kind of content in Rules 14 to 16. This further promotes parity between traditional publishers and digital-native actors engaged in functionally similar activities.
The amendment, therefore, promotes regulatory parity and closes a structural gap in the existing framework. At the same time, a considered feedback point is that the application of Part III to user-generated content should remain targeted at serious and systemic harms. To guard against overbroad enforcement that could chill legitimate political speech or investigative journalism by individuals, the Ministry may consider issuing guidance that interventions directed at intermediaries under rules 14 to 16 will be based on clear criteria, such as reach, impact, and risk, and will use the least restrictive effective measure. This would be consistent with the stated aim of improving oversight of intermediary-hosted content while preserving an open and plural digital public sphere
Finally, the proposed change to Rule 14, replacing “complaints” with “matters,” reflects a shift from a reactive to a more proactive regulatory approach. The Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) would no longer be limited to addressing individual grievances but could also consider broader, systemic issues referred by the Government. In an environment where harms such as coordinated disinformation campaigns often transcend individual complaints, this flexibility is both timely and necessary. At the same time, the expansion of the IDC’s remit underscores the need for procedural safeguards. Periodic disclosures of the nature of “matters” considered, along with adherence to principles of natural justice, would reinforce institutional credibility and prevent perceptions of arbitrary intervention.
Taken together, the draft amendments represent a pragmatic attempt to modernise India’s intermediary liability framework. They acknowledge that static legal doctrines cannot fully address dynamic technological realities. The challenge, however, lies in implementation. Ensuring that enhanced regulatory powers are exercised transparently, proportionately, and in a manner that preserves the open character of the internet is important. If calibrated carefully, these reforms can strike a workable balance and strengthen accountability without undermining innovation or free expression.
(Vaibhav Gaggar is a Senior Advocate, practising before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India.
Kamya Wahal is an Associate at Gaggar & Partners, specialising in company law, venture capital and private equity practice, with a focus on startups, FinTech, and other high-growth sectors)