For most young people today, staying informed about the news and participating in political discussions both happen online – through news posted on Instagram, opinions declared on X, podcasts on YouTube and memes shared everywhere. When The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology’s recently published its draft Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules, 2026, it is this sphere that has come into focus. Soon after the rules were released, online creators, activists and groups like the Internet Freedom Foundation opposed it, pointing out that the rules expand government control over online content amid ‘increased government directed censorship, especially of online political speech that includes parody and satire of the government, including the Prime Minister.’ Recently, a coalition of six journalist groups, have called for the draft to be withdrawn calling it a threat to press freedom. IT Secretary S Krishnan, however, has called the changes ‘clarificatory’ and mentioned that the ministry is open to suggestions. As the extended deadline (April 29) for the public to submit feedback approaches, Bengalureans share their thoughts.
Mazin Iqbal, content creator
Creators will worry about livelihood
Initially, I thought tightening security and compliance is good because we’ve been seeing a lot of deepfakes and AI content online. However, it’s not possible to make everything apolitical. I’ve made videos about governance and civic issues before, but now I’m worried that if these amendments do get passed, how can I be sure that I won’t face repercussions? Many independent creators, especially would think twice about expressing an opinion that might endanger their livelihood – their account being taken down and sponsorships being reduced. I’m curious to see if these rules will affect meme pages too, which exist for all kinds of political topics and are merciless with criticism.
Aishwarya Ravikumar, activist (General Secy, B’luru, People’s Union for Civil Liberties)
Step towards surveillance
The amendments may appear to be small but they dramatically change the legal liability of platforms and target the freedom of speech of individuals who use social media. They are nothing but another step towards the censorship and surveillance of sharp influencers, artistes, comedians and others whose work has been so central in speaking truth to power. All of them are now going to be treated as news publishers. We don’t know what level of action they could take and the extent to which it will affect lives on the ground. But seeing the trend in the last 10 years, we can expect them to be targeted with criminal cases. What we do know for sure is that content will be immediately removed as the easiest course of action for social media platforms is to take posts down. As activists, we use social media to raise awareness and condemn violations of rights – this could threaten that freedom. But we too are reliant on similar information as other people, so this will affect not just our right to speak but our right to listen to, see and learn from other individuals and organisations.
Maj. Vineet Kumar, founder, CyberPeace
Balanced implementation will be key
By incorporating advisories into the due diligence framework under Section 79, the amendment seeks to reduce interpretive ambiguity for platforms and regulators. However, this raises important considerations around proportionality, legal certainty, procedural transparency and its potential implications for free expression in digital spaces. Its implementation will be key to sustaining trust. Ensuring a safe, open and rights-respecting internet will depend on maintaining a careful balance between regulatory agility and constitutional freedom.
Devishi, undergrad student
People will be more cautious about expressing political views
With the rise of misinformation, it seems like a necessary step to introduce some form of regulation. I’m in favour of the rules but I do have some concerns. I mostly consume news online through social media and digital platforms rather than print or television. Because of that, I am concerned about how these rules might influence online political discussions, especially whether people may become more cautious about expressing their views.
Jino Matthews Raju, fintech lawyer
Dilutes constitutional guardrails
Some provisions in the draft rules transgress constitutional boundaries set for delegated legislation. For instance, it proposes that intermediaries will have to comply with any SOPs, advisories, and guidelines issued by the MeitY. If an officer in the ministry issues an SOP without any consultative process, those will also have binding legal effect, and contravention will result in penal action. When these rules further delegate the ministry to come out with binding SOPs, advisories, etc., that is a transgression, because such delegation was not contemplated by the legislature. The rules dilute the guardrails present earlier and and expand the scope of the executive.
(Inputs from Nitya Dani)