Amnesty International called for the immediate withdrawal of India’s proposed digital media amendments on Thursday, warning that the new rules would grant the government “abusive powers” to censor and monitor ordinary citizens online. The human rights organization submitted a detailed legal analysis to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), arguing that the draft regulations would effectively turn social media platforms into “enforcement arms of the state” by removing vital legal protections for users and platforms alike.
The proposed Information Technology Second Amendment Rules, 2026, represent a major expansion of state control over the internet. Unlike previous versions that focused on professional news outlets, these amendments extend censorship powers to include any “news and current affairs content” posted by regular users who are not professional publishers. This broad definition covers almost any socio-political or cultural commentary, potentially placing every private social media post under direct government review.
A central feature of the draft is the empowerment of a government-run Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) to decide on content without needing an external complaint. This committee, made up of ministry officials, can order deletions, changes, or blocking of content based on its own actions. Aakar Patel, the Chair of the Board for Amnesty International India, stated that these provisions provide the state with “intrusive and arbitrary powers” that violate fundamental rights to privacy and expression. Experts also noted that the rules would force platforms to remove content in as little as one to three hours during emergencies, often without giving the affected user a chance to respond.
A major point of concern is the perceived lack of transparency and fairness in the lawmaking process. The government provided only 15 days for public consultation, a timeframe that rights groups have labeled a “farce” given the complexity of the changes. Furthermore, the amendments require platforms to retain user data for at least 180 days and potentially indefinitely if other laws apply. This creates a high risk for mass surveillance as it removes clear limits on how long the state can track an individual’s online activity.
This move marks the seventh time the IT Rules have been amended since 2021, showing a steady trend toward more restrictive government control. Critics point out that the new IDC framework appears to be a “resurrection” of the controversial Fact Check Unit, which was previously struck down by the Bombay High Court as unconstitutional. While the government maintains these changes are merely “clarificatory,” digital rights advocates describe them as part of a “boiling frog” strategy to build a permanent system for state-led censorship step-by-step.
Amnesty International maintains that these amendments fail to meet international human rights standards of necessity and fairness. By making the legal “safe harbor” protection of platforms dependent on following non-binding government advisories, the state is creating a system of “collateral censorship” where companies will likely over-remove lawful speech to avoid government penalties. The organization has urged MeitY to bring the IT Rules in line with India’s international obligations to ensure an open and rights-respecting digital space.
