On October 22, 2025, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”) notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025 (“IT Amendment Rules, 2025”), which will take effect from November 15, 2025. The IT Amendment Rules 2025 substitute Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“IT Rules, 2021”), which governs the content take down process for unlawful content on the platforms of intermediaries.
Under the previous framework, intermediaries were required to act upon receiving actual knowledge of unlawful content through either an order from a court of competent jurisdiction or a notification from the Appropriate Government or its agency under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”). However, the 2021 Rules did not identify the rank or authority of the officers empowered to issue such take-down order, resulting in inconsistency and uncertainty regarding their validity. To address these gaps, the IT Amendment Rules, 2025 establish a more structured mechanism by clearly specifying the ranks of authorised officers, requiring that all takedown intimations be issued in writing with reasons, and introducing a monthly review by senior officials to ensure proportionality and adherence to statutory principles.
Interestingly, in a writ petition filed by X Corp. [challenging the constitutional validity of the Sahyog Portal, and seeking a declaration that authority to issue information-blocking orders flows from Section 69A of the IT Act rather than Section 79(3)(b), and that Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021 is ultra vires or unconstitutional], a Single-Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held on 24th September, 2025 that the Sahyog Portal is not a tool for censorship but merely a facilitative mechanism. The Court concluded that Rule 3(1)(d) is neither ultra vires the IT Act nor arbitrary, emphasising that the Constitution allows reasonable regulation and cannot be weakened under the banner of free speech. X has filed an appeal before the Karnataka High Court challenging the decision of the Single-Judge Bench. Whether this Amendment is designed to minimise future procedural challenges before the Supreme Court is unclear.
Salient feature of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media and Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025:
Under the amended clause (d) to Rule 3(1) , an intermediary is required to remove or disable access to information used to commit any unlawful act or any information which is prohibited under any law, including those relating to sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence, within 36 hours of receiving “actual knowledge” of such content.
Importantly, “actual knowledge” will now arise only in the following two situations:
By contrast, the earlier version of the IT Rules only referred to the “appropriate government or its agency” allowing orders to be issued by officials of varying levels, resulting in inconsistency. The amendment thus brings clarity with regard to the specific officials who can issue takedown orders.
The IT Amendment Rules 2025 now expressly require that every takedown intimation issued by an authorised officer be in writing and supported with specific details and reasons. Each such intimation must clearly specify :
This replaces the earlier vague practice under the 2021 framework and codifies a clear and reasoned process for government takedown orders.
The IT Amendment Rules 2025 introduce a periodic review mechanism for all takedown orders issued by the concerned authorities. Under this new framework, every such intimation must be reviewed once every month by an officer not below the rank of Secretary of the concerned Appropriate Government. The objective of this monthly review is to ensure that all takedown directions continue to be necessary, proportionate, and consistent with Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and the amended Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules 2021.
Previously, there was no structured oversight mechanism to reassess the validity or necessity of government takedown orders once they were issued. This absence often led to concerns about the potential misuse or overreach of executive powers in online content regulation. While the amendment strengthens oversight by introducing an ex-post accountability mechanism, it does not detail the process or possible outcomes of such reviews specifically, whether prior orders may be withdrawn, modified, or reaffirmed following review.
Notably, the 2025 Amendment Rules also omit the earlier proviso to Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules 2021, which had expressly protected intermediaries from losing safe harbour in cases where they voluntarily removed or disabled access to unlawful content or acted upon user grievances in good faith.
The deletion of this proviso introduces an element of uncertainty regarding the legal treatment of voluntary content moderation. While intermediaries may still claim safe harbour protection where such removals are consistent with their terms of service and undertaken in good faith, the absence of explicit statutory language could discourage proactive moderation, prompting platforms to rely more heavily on formal court or government directions before taking down content. This omission thus narrows the express scope of intermediary discretion under the Rules and may lead to a more cautious compliance environment, where platforms prioritise adherence to verified legal directions to mitigate liability risks.
The 2025 Amendment marks a significant shift in India’s intermediary liability and content takedown framework by replacing the “actual knowledge” standard with a clearer, more procedurally disciplined system. By identifying the specific ranks of government officers who may issue takedown directions, mandating written and reasoned intimations, and introducing monthly senior-level review, the Rules seek to embed greater clarity, accountability, and internal oversight into the takedown process.
For intermediaries, the new framework simultaneously raises the compliance bar and narrows the scope of discretion. The omission of express protection for voluntary takedowns creates uncertainty around proactive moderation, meaning platforms must now tread carefully and act primarily on formal, authorised legal directions to preserve safe harbour.
Overall, the Amendment represents an attempt to strike a more stable balance between user rights, government authority, and intermediary responsibility. While its long-term impact will depend on implementation and future judicial scrutiny, the Rules clearly aim to reduce ambiguity and harmonise procedural standards governing online content regulation in India.
This article was originally published on Sai Krishna Associates