Delhi-based legal advocacy organisation Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC.in) has called for the immediate withdrawal of the draft amendments to India’s IT Rules.
SFLC has called for the immediate withdrawal of the draft amendments to India’s IT Rules, warning that the proposed changes could significantly impact free speech and user privacy online.
The amendments, released by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) as part of the Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules, 2026, are currently open for public consultation.
In an exclusive conversation with EFY’s Sr Journalist Pratyush Kumar, SFLC founder Mishi Choudhary cautioned that the proposed framework, though positioned as a compliance measure, introduces sweeping changes that could undermine constitutional protections. “The amendments risk creating unprecedented digital censorship and an oppressive chilling effect on online speech,” Choudhary said.
According to Mishi, the current draft is a flagrant violation of Article 19 of the Constitution. The government has found a backdoor way to control anyone who puts up content without parliamentary scrutiny. “These draft amendments represent a subversion of existing procedures and constitutional safeguards and are introducing opaque, arbitrary, and unchecked delegated legislation. They should be withdrawn entirely”, she further adds.
Concerns Over Free Speech and Platform Moderation
A key concern raised by SFLC.in is the expanded scope of content regulation. The organisation argues that increased compliance pressure on intermediaries could push platforms to adopt stricter moderation practices, leading to the removal of lawful content. This, it notes, could disproportionately affect discussions around news and current affairs, where platforms may err on the side of caution to avoid regulatory scrutiny.
Data Retention Clause Raises Privacy Red Flags
The draft rules propose that intermediaries retain user data for 180 days, even after the original purpose for data collection has been fulfilled.
Choudhary stressed that this directly conflicts with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. “Rule 31G and 31H say the data retention requirements are without prejudice to any other obligations. That means the DPDPA does not apply here. If I have a right to erasure, it doesn’t matter. These rules are trying to undermine whatever little rights we got under that Act,” she explained.
Call for Wider Consultation
The organisation has urged the government to to adopt a more transparent, consultative approach and encouraged citizens to submit objections before the April 29 deadline.
“All of these amendments — whether it’s Rule 8, 31G, 31H, or others — need to be withdrawn. Rules are not the place to jam in such fundamental changes to how we operate,” Choudhary said. Citizens can file objections until April 29, 2026.
A Larger Debate on Digital Governance
The draft amendments have reignited the ongoing debate over balancing regulation of digital platforms with the protection of fundamental rights.
While the government aims to strengthen accountability in the digital ecosystem, critics argue that the current proposals risk tilting the balance toward excessive control.
