Amnesty International has raised significant concerns over India’s proposed amendments to its digital media framework, urging an immediate withdrawal due to potential “abusive powers” it confers on the government. The amendments to the Information Technology Second Amendment Rules, 2026, suggest a notable expansion of state influence over internet content. Unlike previous digital regulations that primarily targeted professional media outlets, the new proposals extend censorship capabilities to include any “news and current affairs content” shared by ordinary users. This broad definition could subject virtually every private social media post to government scrutiny.
A central aspect of the draft regulations involves establishing a government-run Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC), empowered to act on content without external complaints. Comprised of ministry officials, this committee is authorized to order deletions or changes independently. Amnesty International India’s Chair, Aakar Patel, highlights that these measures provide the state with “intrusive and arbitrary powers,” infringing on privacy and expression rights. Furthermore, experts indicate that platforms might be compelled to remove content rapidly, sometimes within one to three hours during emergencies, without allowing affected users to respond. The detailed analysis submitted by Amnesty underscores these potential overreach issues.
Critics have also raised red flags about the lawmaking process’s transparency and fairness. The government allotted only 15 days for public consultation, a period deemed insufficient given the complexity of the changes. The amendments mandate platforms to retain user data for no less than 180 days, and possibly indefinitely if other laws come into play, exacerbating mass surveillance concerns by removing clear limits on state tracking of online activities.
This development marks the seventh alteration to the IT Rules since 2021, evidencing a rigorous trajectory towards enhanced governmental web control. The IDC framework is particularly contentious as it resembles the defunct Fact Check Unit, which was previously declared unconstitutional by the Bombay High Court. Critics argue that, despite the government’s claim of these amendments being merely “clarificatory,” they represent a progressive encroachment strategy to establish a permanent, state-controlled censorship mechanism.
Highlighting a failure to align with international human rights benchmarks of necessity and fairness, Amnesty International contends that by tethering platform legal protections to the adherence to non-binding governmental advisories, a system of “collateral censorship” is being created. This compels companies to over-remove lawful speech to avoid sanctions. Urging compliance with international standards, Amnesty emphasizes the importance of a digital space that respects rights and remains open. Further insights from The Times of India delve into the broader implications and responses from digital rights groups.