The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) may move to separately notify a proposed rule that would require intermediaries to comply with the ministry’s clarifications, advisories, directions, SOPs, codes of practice and guidelines, or risk legal action, a government official told HT.
Rule 3(4) was among three key amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, published by the ministry for public consultation on March 30. A fourth amendment was added to the proposal on April 21. But a second reason was the pending discussions with the ministry of information and broadcasting (MIB) on two other proposed amendments – expanding the powers of the Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) under Rule 14(2), and bringing user-generated content related to news and current affairs, including community notes on X, under MIB’s oversight through Rule 8(1).
The official quoted above said that the move to separately notify the advisory requirement is aimed at ensuring compliance begins at the earliest. At least three meetings between MeitY and MIB had been scheduled since May, but were subsequently cancelled, according to two people aware of the matter.
Industry bodies representing major social media companies had called for the rule to be withdrawn and argued that this rule could turn government advisories into legally binding obligations tied to safe harbour, expanding intermediary liability and creating uncertainty for businesses. The executive action cannot create entirely new liabilities or bypass legislative oversight. Rule 3(4) forms part of the due-diligence obligations under Section 79 of the IT Act, meaning intermediaries could lose their safe-harbour protection if they fail to comply with government advisories. MeitY also plans to introduce a schedule specifying which government advisories will be mandatory for intermediaries to comply with under Rule 3(4), HT reported on June 1.
Therefore, such instruments with whatever nomenclature are introduced, would have to necessarily abide by the rule making process and powers and under the Act.”
Dhruv Garg, partner at policy advisory Indian Governance and Policy Project (IGAP) said: “Under Indian jurisprudence, delegated legislation possesses no independent authority; it draws its lifeblood entirely from the parent statute. Subordinate rules must strictly flow from the parent Act, remain within its “four corners,” and be enacted solely in the manner prescribed by Parliament.
