Activists slam MeitY’s IT Rules consultation with ‘spare’ civil society participation

Digital rights activists on Tuesday (April 7) said a consultation meeting convened by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on the proposed amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, had “sparse” civil society participation and was held without any intent to “explain or answer questions” raised on the amendments.

Digital rights organisation Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) said its Founder Director Apar Gupta attended the meeting, where civil society participation was “sparse, with only three to four organisations in the room”. The group noted that a separate meeting had been held earlier for industry stakeholders, but “private sector representatives” were present even in the session they attended.

“This speaks to the gradual erosion of capacity and shrinking number of civil society organisations in India that work on digital rights,” the IFF said in a statement.

Procedural lapses and transparency concerns

It also flagged procedural lapses, stating there was a “continuing lack of adherence to the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, 2014,” and called for “greater transparency in the processes through which policy and regulation are framed”.

Also read: AI three-hour takedown rule: When speed becomes the censor

Digital rights activist and Editor of MediaNama, Nikhil Pahwa, also objected to how the meeting was held. In a post on X, he said, “We finished the meeting with @SecretaryMEITY wherein they just treated this meeting today treating as a compliance exercise with no intent to explain or answer questions we have raised. I told Mr. Krishnan that the governments intent behind the IT Rules consultation is evident in the impact they are having - of mass censorship. This is an infrastructure for mass censorship (sic).”

Both IFF and Pahwa called for the withdrawal of the proposed amendments, with IFF emphasising that public participation had been crucial in securing even limited consultation. “That pressure matters. It is what creates space for civil society at tables from which it would otherwise be excluded,” the organisation said.

Access Now’s perspective

Raman Jit Singh Chima, Asia Pacific Policy Director and Senior International Counsel at Access Now, an international digital rights organisation, who was also present for the consultation, said the government indicated it wants to give more time and understand concerns, but “actual commitment would be actually incorporating feedback and concerns”.

“Do they actually realise the scope of the problems that are there with how they keep trying to change the IT rules? And recognise that there are limits, both constitutional limits as well as limitations in terms of the negative effects it has on open and free activity taking place on the internet? That’s not yet clear,” he told The Federal.

Proposed modifications and IFF’s response

On the substance of the discussions, IFF said the MeitY Secretary indicated that certain modifications to the draft amendments were under consideration, including creating a master index of advisories and greater definitional clarity around terms such as “news” and “current affairs.” However, the organisation said these changes did not address its core concerns.

Also read: Centre proposes bringing users posting news content on social media under IT Rules: Report

“Our oral intervention restated the position set out in IFF's formal written comments that the proposed amendments to the IT Rules, 2021 must be withdrawn in their entirety. We also stated more than 600 individuals (750+ now, yay!) have submitted their responses to MeitY using a public template made available by IFF. We submitted, in brief, that the modifications indicated at the meeting do not fundamentally alter the illegality or the censorial impact of the proposed changes,” the IFF said.

“We grounded this position in the framework of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and in the existing patterns of opaque censorship under the Rules that operate without any meaningful adherence to the principles of natural justice. We concluded by reiterating our demand for a complete withdrawal of the proposed amendments and for substantially greater transparency in the rule-making process going forward,” it added.

Criticism of takedown practices

Pahwa said he raised several concerns which were not addressed, including the lack of accountability in takedown decisions, stating there was “no transparency or accountability in takedown/blocking actions” and that the Ministry was “not responsive to RTI requests.” He also criticised the shortened consultation window, saying the policy mandates 30 days but “this consultation was only 15 days.”

“All takedown orders are now like emergency orders, with three-hour takedowns. There is no application of mind on whether content is actually illegal or harmful. Everything is taken down as emergency… No accountability mechanism for citizens whose accounts or posts are removed. Regulatory changes are outpacing judicial review,” Pahwa posted.

Also read: India mandates 3-hour takedown for AI content: FAQ of what you need to know

“This is part of a cumulative censorship framework built since the 2021 IT Rules. The current Rules need to be withdrawn, and the infrastructure for censorship needs to be dismantled. There should be no surprise additions to these rules — in the last consultation, they added a whole new takedown provision which had not been consulted upon,” he added.

Call for overall review

Chima said an overall review of the IT Rules was needed.

“Since 2021, multiple organisations, multiple public interest groups and others have said that the general structure of the IT rules is unconstitutional, fragmented, and not effective. And the government is constantly adding new things to it, even while people are challenging parts of it in court, or stuff is being implemented. So perhaps independent of just this discussion, the government needs to do an overall review of the IT rules... That understanding, I'm not sure it is still there within the government,” he said.

Chima said there was talk of the deadline for public feedback (April 14 as of now) being extended during the meeting, but there was no clarity on when it would be announced or how long the extension would be.