Cherylann Mollanand Umang Poddar
Sandeep Singh
The Indian government has proposed changes to extend its regulatory framework to a wider range of online news voices, including influencers and podcasters on platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and X.
Last week, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) suggested amendments to India's IT rules - which govern digital media content - to include "users who are not publishers" who share content related to "news and current affairs" within a "code of ethics" it currently applies to registered news publishers.
Experts say this will potentially give the government more power over news-related posts shared by ordinary users, including independent journalists and podcasters.
The government has proposed requiring social media platforms to follow orders and guidelines if they want to keep "safe harbour" protection - legal immunity from liability for content posted by users.
The proposed amendments have alarmed digital rights activists and independent news creators, who say they could enforce near-total compliance with state-led censorship on social media platforms. They also warn the rules could be misused to target critics and clamp down on dissent.
The government says the amendments will strengthen existing IT rules and curb fake news, hate speech and deepfakes, and has invited public feedback by 14 April.
But critics remain sceptical of the government's stated intentions.
Akash Banerjee, who runs the YouTube channel The Deshbhakt with more than six million subscribers, says the rules could create a climate of fear, pushing many creators toward self-censorship.
"Interestingly, despite the many laws regulating online content, hate speech and fake news haven't reduced in the country. Meanwhile, posts that are critical of the government - even if they're satirical - are increasingly being blocked or removed," Banerjee says. The authorities reject the charge.
Getty Images
But last month, X blocked about a dozen accounts, many known for satirical posts about the government, acting on orders issued under Section 69A of India's IT Act.
Kumar Nayan, whose X account @Nehr_who? has about 242,000 followers, told the BBC he received neither prior notice nor an explanation for the block.
Nayan said his account was restored this week by a court order, but 10 posts remain blocked in India pending review by a government-appointed panel. The BBC has seen the posts, all of which either mock Prime Minister Narendra Modi or criticise his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government.
"No reasonable person will say that these posts threaten the nation's security or disturb communal harmony. They are just funny posts, so why does the government want them taken down? Nayan asks.
He added that by challenging the order in court, his identity is now public, raising concerns about his safety.
"I have lost the anonymity offered by social media, which is a double-edged sword but also shields whistleblowers and critics from threats and harassment," he says.
Nayan has moved home since his identity became public.
The BBC has shared a list of questions with MeitY.
Meanwhile, a recent US government report noted that since 2021, US social media firms had been subjected to an "increasing number of takedown requests for content and user accounts related to issues that appear politically motivated".
Nikhil Pahwa, a digital rights activist, says the proposed amendments to the IT rules only strengthen the government's existing "infrastructure for mass censorship".
In an article co-authored with Apar Gupta, founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation, in the Times of India newspaper, Pahwa traces how successive amendments to the IT rules - introduced in 2021 - have expanded the government's control over online content and diminished users' rights.
A 2021 amendment brought digital news outlets under government oversight, while a 2025 change strengthened the federal home ministry's Sahyog portal - a centralised platform that allows a number of agencies to issue takedown notices to social media companies with limited transparency and fewer safeguards, say the authors.
Getty Images
This portal functions as a parallel mechanism for removing content, distinct from the blocking powers granted to the federal government under Section 69A of the IT Act.
"Keen to preserve market access in India, platforms comply. Citizens whose speech is restricted receive no notice, no hearings, no reasons, and neither government nor platforms can be held to account by a legal system being outpaced by regulatory agility," Pahwa writes.
MeitY Secretary S Krishnan has defended the IT rules and the recently proposed changes saying that guidelines issued by his ministry are in keeping with the law and the Constitution.
He told the BBC that there "needed to be a common policy or common framework" to govern news and current affairs' content as such content is no longer shared only by news publishers but also ordinary citizens.
Sandeep Singh, whose X account @ActivistSandeep (with 100,000+ followers) was among those blocked in March, says he began posting critical views after feeling mainstream media was "biased" in favour of the BJP.
Singh's X account remained blocked in India at the time of writing this article.
"I stand for the truth and blocking my accounts or posts will not stop me from continuing speaking truth to power," Singh told the BBC.
Nayan says that while he has the means to challenge the blocking orders in court, not every person will be willing to go to such lengths to have their content restored.
"In a democracy, people should have the liberty to post what they want, with certain limitations of course, without fear. India is a democracy, so why has it become so difficult to do so?" he says.
