Why in the News
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) is updating its content blocking regulations. Under the revised framework, only senior government officials at the central and state levels can issue content removal notices under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology
Act, 2000. This step aims to improve accountability and prevent misuse of online takedown powers.
Key Features of the New Safeguards
- Restriction to Senior Officials
Only the following officers can issue content blocking orders:
- Central/State: Joint Secretary or equivalent; Director-level officers where JS is not available.
- Police Departments: Deputy Inspector General (DIG) or above, with specific authorisation.
- Detailed Orders
Each notice must include:
- Legal basis and statutory provisions invoked.
- Nature of the alleged unlawful act.
- Exact URL or digital location of the content to be blocked.
Monthly Review
All blocking orders will be reviewed monthly by an officer not below the rank of Secretary, such as IT Secretary (Centre) or Home/IT
Secretaries (State).
Template for Uniformity
A standard Template Blocking Order will be provided to ensure uniformity across central and state agencies.
Rule 3(1)(d) as the Basis
- Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, allows officials to flag online content.
- When such notices are issued, social media platforms lose their safe harbour protections, meaning they may be held liable for content unless
justified or removed. - These notices are warnings, not direct takedown orders, signaling that immunity no longer applies.
Reason for the Amendment
Previously, junior police officers like sub-inspectors were issuing blocking orders, leading to potential misuse.
The amendment ensures:
- Only senior officials can authorize blocking.
- Orders are justified, transparent, and legally reasoned.
Background: Legal Challenge by X (formerly Twitter)
- X had challenged Rule 3(1)(d), claiming it allowed arbitrary censorship by local officers.
- Karnataka High Court upheld the government’s authority under the rule.
- While the amendment is not directly a response to X’s case, it addresses some concerns by restricting who can issue orders and mandating clear justifications.