As Centre seeks tighter control over online content, why it may lead to pre-censorship

Freedom of expression is among the most powerful rights citizens from all walks of life possess, and remains central to demanding accountability from those in power. It is this very digital public square that now risks being squeezed. By widening the regulatory net to cover even individual voices on “news and current affairs”, the proposed IT Rules amendments could recast everyday speech as a compliance burden, raising fears of a quieter, more cautious Internet.

Beyond censorship

A key reason behind why these proposed rules have drawn widespread scrutiny is that they are being seen as the government, particularly the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, looking to gain control over not just content posted, but rather who has posted it.

That concern raises a key question behind the intent of the fresh proposals. If the idea was to target misleading or problematic content on the Internet, the government, at all levels – Centre and states – has the power to block it, a power which has seen overwhelming use in the last few months. Section 69 (A) of the Information Technology (IT) Act empowers the IT Ministry to issue blocking orders, a power which could be extended to multiple ministries, as The Indian Express had earlier reported. Section 79(3)(b) allows several central ministries and state governments to issue blocking orders to platforms.

Several videos, many of which can be argued to not be illegal whatsoever, have seen blocking action in recent months, even when they have been merely satirical in nature. One of the most popular examples of such content that has been blocked is a short video uploaded by stand-up comic Pulkit Mani – although, his satirical take refuses to vanish from the Internet, as users keep resharing it, each time it is taken down.

Though the government laments that blocking of content has risen primarily on account of deepfakes and financial misinformation, censorship in India, at its core, remains a political tool.

The fresh rules would allow the government to gain a different kind of control, and could also pose a threat to online anonymity. Under the proposal, the government would have the power to seek details of any user posting content related to news and current affairs, even if they are not professional news publishers. A government panel, called the ‘Inter-Departmental Committee’ would be empowered to look at videos or content that has been referred to it by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) and recommend actions such as seeking an apology from the creator in question, directing them to modify parts of their content or take it down altogether.

Psychological impact

To be sure, these could be user-generated content, done non-professionally. It wouldn’t matter. The MIB would have a say in what these creators have to say. Experts believe that this would encompass almost all kinds of content that relates to news and current affairs – from satirical takes on current events, and a stand-up comic making a joke about a government policy, to even fact-checks carried out by users on platforms like X through its ‘Community Notes’ feature. Basically, if one shares a news link, or does any kind of commentary on or analysis of a news event, these rules will impact them.

What this could lead to is a psychological inclination to self-censor. Regular individuals rarely have the tendency, tenacity, or resources, to take on the government ecosystem – and the fear of being apprehended for saying something that is potentially unpalatable to the government is very real. Tech companies internally believe that if these rules are finalised in their current form, it will effectively lead to users pre-censoring themselves. That would result in a much less vibrant online ecosystem, ironic, given the government’s efforts at boosting the so-called ‘orange economy’.

As such, the pushback against these rules is not likely to be spearheaded by tech companies, who – barring some exceptions – have largely refrained from calling out government policies publicly in India, a tool that they employ in other jurisdictions.

Parallels to the failed Broadcasting Bill

Many in the tech space are seeing the draft IT Rules as a redux of the government’s failed attempt at pushing the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) (BSR) Bill, 2024, – which the MIB was secretly working on along with a select few stakeholders. The Bill, a draft of which was shared privately with some tech companies, sought to expand the MIB’s remit from OTT content and digital news to include social media accounts and online video creators; define a “digital news broadcaster” in sweeping terms; require prior registration with the government; and prescribe standards for content evaluation.

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting later withdrew the draft BSR Bill, as it triggered a controversy and criticism over fears that the government was trying to exert greater control over online content. The draft Bill had raised several questions on the freedom of speech and expression, and the government’s powers to regulate it. Though the draft IT Rules don’t seek registration of those who are posting news-related content, they allow the MIB similar powers over such content.