New Delhi: Following a legal battle with Elon Musk's X over social media guidelines, the Centre has made key amendments to the Information Technology law to "enhance transparency, accountability and safeguards".
One of the amendments limits the number of officials who can issue orders for the removal of "unlawful information". Another key change is that authorities must "clearly specify the legal basis and statutory provision" and the "unlawful act" while issuing such directives.
This comes a month after the Karnataka High Court rejected a petition by X Corp, challenging the authority of government officials to issue information blocking orders. "Social media needs to be regulated, and its regulation is a must, more so in cases of offences against women, in particular, failing which the right to dignity, as ordained in the Constitution of a citizen gets railroaded," the court said in its order.
Late on Wednesday, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology notified the amendments to Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
"These amendments strengthen the framework of due diligence obligations of intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000," the ministry said. According to the gazette notification, the changes come into force on November 15.
The ministry said a review "highlighted the need for additional safeguards to ensure senior-level accountability, precise specification of unlawful content, and periodic review of government directions at (the) highest level".
A key amendment is that any intimation for removal of unlawful information can now only be issued by "a senior officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary, or equivalent, or, where such rank is not appointed, a Director or an officer equivalent in rank-and, where so authorised, acting through a single corresponding officer in its authorised agency, where such agency is so appointed", the ministry said. It added that in the case of police authorities, "only an officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), specially authorised, can issue such intimation".
Earlier, even police inspectors were empowered to issue such directives.
Another key amendment is the inclusion of the "reasoned intimation with specific details" requirement. "The intimation must clearly specify the legal basis and statutory provision, the nature of the unlawful act, and the specific URL/identifier or other electronic location of the information, data or communication link ('content') to be removed."
The ministry also said a monthly review must be held for all these intimations to ensure "that such actions remain necessary, proportionate, and consistent with law".
"The amendments strike a balance between the constitutional rights of citizens and the legitimate regulatory powers of the State, ensuring that enforcement actions are transparent and do not lead to arbitrary restrictions," it said.
A section in the ministry's statement is named "Expected Impact" and states that clear guidelines on "who can issue directions and how, with periodic review, ensures checks and balances".
"By mandating detailed and reasoned intimations, intermediaries will have better guidance to act in compliance with law. Safeguards and Proportionality: The reforms ensure proportionality and uphold the principles of natural justice while reinforcing lawful restrictions under the IT Act, 2000," it added.
Following the Karnataka High Court order, X had said it was "deeply concerned" by the recent order that "will allow millions of police officers to issue arbitrary takedown orders through a secretive online portal called the Sahyog". "This new regime has no basis in the law, circumvents Section 69A of the IT Act, violates Supreme Court rulings, and infringes Indian citizens' constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression.
The Sahyog enables officers to order content removal based solely on allegations of 'illegality,' without judicial review or due process for the speakers, and threatens platforms with criminal liability for non-compliance," it had said.
The Centre had opposed X's plea in court, contending that unlawful or illegal content could not claim the same degree of constitutional protection as legitimate speech.
