A Legal Analysis Of The Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines And Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, Second Amendment Rules, 2026 Dated 30th March 2026
- IJLLR Journal
- 3 days ago
- 1 min read
Chezhiiyan Sabapathy, O.P. Jindal Global University
INTRODUCTION
Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 protects online intermediaries from legal liability for content posted by their users, as long as they meet certain due diligence requirements. This protection is known as ‘safe harbour’. In the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court read down the conditions under which safe harbour may be lost, holding that an intermediary is only required to remove content on receipt of a court order or a valid direction under Section 69A of the Act. In other words, the intermediary is not expected to be the judge of what user content should stay or be removed from their platform.
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 [“IT (IGDM)”] made a few significant changes to the existing regime by introducing a Code of Ethics for digital publishers, a three-tier grievance mechanism, and an Inter- Department Committee [“IDC”] with the power to recommend content-blocking. In the case Agij Promotions of Nineteenonea v. Union of India, the Bombay High Court stayed Rule 9, which is the provision that required publishers to comply with the code of ethics, on the view that it was beyond the scope of Section 87 of the IT Act (Rule-making power of central government) and Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution. The Madras High Court in the case of T.M. Krishna v. Union of India confirmed that the Bombay High Court’s stay on Rule 9 applies across India. According to the Internet Freedom Foundation, these and other related challenges remain pending before the Delhi High Court.
