[Courting Controversy] From broadcasters to bystanders: When the IT Rules turn everyday users into publishers
Okay, CLAT aspirants, here's something every law student needs to understand about online speech. What's happening is, proposed amendments to India's IT Rules are trying to make everyday social media users who share or comment on news, like you or me, accountable as if we were actual news publishers. This really matters because it blurs the lines, potentially affecting our Article 19(1)(a) right to freedom of speech and expression. Also, it raises serious Article 14 concerns about treating ordinary individuals the same as large media houses without their resources. Bottom line for the exam, this move could significantly change how we interact with current affairs online, shifting responsibility onto individual users.
Good Night, and Good Luck, a play directed by George Clooney, follows a journalist’s confrontation with a senator during the height of the anti-communist hysteria in 1950s America. At its core, the play captures a moment where the act of reporting on public affairs was fraught with consequence and where the boundaries between responsibility and restraint were constantly negotiated between media houses and the State.
If news in the era of the internet was to have a defining moment, the latest set of proposed amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules) might feel a bit likeGood Night, and Good Luck, a space where tension between power, speech and responsibility is not just background noise, but the central story.
The proposed amendments attempt something fairly unprecedented - pulling ordinary users of social media platforms into a regulatory framework that was originally designed for publishers and intermediaries. Part III of the IT Rules, which houses the Code of Ethics for digital media, was until now largely confined to publishers of news, current affairs and online curated content. The proposed amendment in Rule 8(1), however, expands the reach of Part III to cover ordinary users who are not publishers [Proviso to Rule 8 (1) of the IT Rules, 2021]. This means that any person offering a view on the news and current affairs would fall within the category of someone who is a news publisher. For instance, an Instagram reel explaining the new budget, or a YouTube video breaking down a landmark Supreme Court judgment, or even a thread on X related to everyday gas and LPG crisis could place users posting such content squarely within the oversight mechanism of Rules 14, 15, and 16 of the IT Rules.
That shift is not just semantic, but structural, because even ordinary everyday users of social media can be directly subject to directions issued by the authorised officer, acting on behalf of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, to delete, modify or block content posted by them [Rule 14 (5) (e), Rule 15 (2) of the IT Rules]. They could also face softer, but no less significant sanctions such as warnings, censure and even a compelled apology [Rule 14 (5) (a), (b) of the IT Rules].
At one level, this move appears to be a rational response to a very real problem. In an ecosystem where misinformation travels faster than facts and breaking news is often crowdsourced, the State’s impulse to create a more direct redressal mechanism appears logical. In theory, this could enable quicker intervention against harmful or misleading content.
However, this is where the proposed amendments begin to raise harder questions. Firstly, they place ordinary users on the same footing as intermediaries insofar as news and current affairs content is concerned, overlooking the fundamental differences between these actors and the responsibilities they carry. Intermediary platforms and established news organisations operate with dedicated compliance teams, legal resources and structured grievance redressal mechanisms. Further, professional news outlets, by virtue of being in the business of disseminating information for profit, bear a heightened obligation to ensure accuracy and prevent the spread of misinformation, justifying closer regulatory scrutiny.
An individual user, by contrast, operates without institutional support and is, at best, armed with a comment section and an intuitive sense of what might be flagged. Collapsing these distinct categories into a single regulatory framework risks disregarding this asymmetry and imposing disproportionate burden on users who are neither equipped nor intended to function as formal news publishers.
Secondly, and more fundamentally, extending the IT Rules to cover ordinary users, albeit only in relation to news and current affairs content, raises serious concerns. Ordinary users engage with such content in diverse ways, such as through educational explainers, satire, parody, or commentary. Much of this expression, while in the context of current events, is not intended to function as news in the conventional sense. Yet, given the breadth of the definition of news and current affairs under the IT Rules [Rule 2 (m) of the IT Rules], a wide spectrum of such content could potentially fall within its ambit.
The consequence is a blurring of boundaries that may discourage creative and critical engagement alike. If all forms of user-generated content touching upon current affairs are susceptible to regulatory scrutiny, the effect is not merely corrective but deterrent. Therefore, a more balanced approach in Part III of the IT Rules must preserve the distinction between broadcasters - those disseminating news to the public - and bystanders, who engage with and create secondary content around it. Absent this distinction, the proposed amendments risk burdening bystanders as if they were broadcasters, leaving a digital space that may be technically compliant, but far less alive.
Nakul Dewan is a Senior Advocate and King’s Counsel.