MeitY tightens rules for online content removal
The government has tightened content takedown rules, requiring senior officials to authorize removals and mandating detailed justifications for actions.
The government has introduced new procedural safeguards to content takedown rules, restricting the power to senior officials and mandating reasoned orders with monthly reviews. The changes in rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules 2021 introduce a three-tier system that will come into effect on November 15.
Once notified, the rules will limit content removal powers to officials at joint secretary rank or above in central ministries, their equivalents in states, and deputy inspector general or higher in police forces.
All intimations must now include specific legal basis, statutory provisions and exact URLs, replacing earlier broad notifications with detailed “reasoned intimations.” A secretary-level officer will review all orders monthly to ensure necessity and proportionality.
“We have raised the level of accountability in the government. It has to be a senior level officer who can authorise,” said Union minister for electronics and IT (Meity) Ashwini Vaishnaw at a press briefing.
Previously, even junior officers, sometimes of ranks as low as section officers or deputy directors, could send removal notifications and without providing detailed legal reasoning.
A review by the ministry found that clearer safeguards were needed to prevent misuse and ensure accountability, the government said in a statement on Wednesday.
Last month, IT secretary S Krishnan held a workshop with officials from various ministries to guide them on the correct scope of sections 79(3)(b) and 69A of the IT Act. This was prompted by instances where officers had made mistakes in the language or format of takedown notices issued under section 79(3)(b), he told HT at the time.
The concerns over who can order takedowns was at the centre of social media platform X’s recent legal challenge to the government’s Sahyog portal—a centralised system for sending content removal notices that the company argued allowed thousands of officials to issue arbitrary orders without judicial oversight. The Karnataka high court dismissed X’s petition, upholding the portal as a legitimate regulatory tool.
IT secretary Krishnan confirmed the new provisions will apply to the Sahyog portal mechanism. “The Sahyog portal is merely a facilitative mechanism, a clearing house that streamlines communication between the government and intermediaries. It holds no independent legal authority; it simply operates within the framework of the law. And the law is the IT Act and the IT Rules.”
Describing the changes as “prima facie a good move”, an expert said it will need to be seen if there is a drop in volumes of such orders. “While this safeguard definitely reduces the number of sources through which orders can be issued, the volume will depend on what protocols DIGs follow. If they just forward the orders, volumes may not drop as much. However, if there is serious application of mind before sending an order to the intermediary, there may be a qualitative drop,” said Dhruv Garg, partner at Indian Governance & Policy Project (IGAP).
Under the revised framework, any authorised official seeking content removal must now provide three specific elements in their intimation: the legal basis and statutory provision being invoked, the nature of the unlawful act, and the precise URL, identifier or electronic location of the content.
This requirement replaces what was criticised as vague notifications that merely cited “unlawful content” without detailed justification. The change aligns the rules with the requirement of “actual knowledge” mandated under Section 79(3)(b), bringing what the government described as “clarity and precision” to enforcement actions.
The Sahyog portal, developed by the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre, has been operational since October 2024.
