New IT Rules Violate Digital Rights, Undermine Constitutional Protection for Users: IFF

New Delhi: The Internet Freedom Foundation IFF), in its initial reaction to the Information Technology (IGDME) Amendment Rules, 2026, notified by the government on Tuesday concerning synthetically generated information (SGI), said these violate digital rights and undermine protections given to users by the Indian Constitution.

In a statement posted on X on the reduced timeline give for removal of content on social media platforms, IFF said: “These impossibly short timelines eliminate any meaningful human review, forcing platforms toward automated over-removal and creating a prior restraint regime incompatible with Article 19(1)(a).”

Read the full IFF statement below:

IFF Statement on the Information Technology (IGDME) Amendment Rules, 2026 The Government of India today notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026, concerning synthetically generated information (SGI). While these rules claim to address AI-generated content harms such as deepfakes, they introduce severe digital rights violations that fundamentally undermine constitutional protections and worsen problems that IFF had flagged in our November 2025 submissions on the draft rules.

1.   Accelerated Censorship Through Compressed Timelines : The notified rules drastically compress content removal timelines, transforming intermediaries into rapid fire censors. Government takedown orders must now be complied with within three hours (reduced from 36 hours in the draft), while Grievance Appellate Committee orders must be actioned within two hours (down from 24 hours). User complaints on significant social media intermediaries must be resolved within seven days (reduced from 15 days), with urgent cases requiring action within 36 hours (down from 72 hours). These impossibly short timelines eliminate any meaningful human review, forcing platforms toward automated over-removal and creating a prior restraint regime incompatible with Article 19(1)(a). It is notable that in many of these censorship actions a copy of the notice or hearing is never provided to the person whose content is removed. Hence, the entire process is secretive and in violation of natural justice.

2. Expansion of Prohibited Content Categories: The rules introduce sweeping new prohibitions absent from the draft that was put to consultation. Rule 3(3)(a)(i) now categorically bans SGI that "results in the creation, generation, modification or alteration of any false document or false electronic record". This vague formulation could criminalize legitimate uses of AI in document preparation, research outputs, and creative works. The rules also prohibit SGI "falsely depicting or portraying" persons or events "in a manner that is likely to deceive", language so broad it could capture satire, parody, political commentary, and artistic expression.

3. Identity Disclosure to Private Parties: A particularly troubling addition is Rule 3(1)(ca)(ii)(III), which mandates disclosure of violating users' identities directly to complainants who claim to be victims. This bypasses judicial oversight and creates serious risks of harassment, doxing, and vigilante action, especially against marginalized users and dissenting voices. This is due to the absence of any anchoring language for the need to get a court order or an order pursuant to a criminal investigation.

4. Continued Violation of Safe Harbor Framework: Despite IFF's submissions highlighting incompatibility with Section 79 of the IT Act and the Shreya Singhal precedent, the rules continue to impose proactive monitoring obligations that transform intermediaries from neutral conduits into active censors of speech. The requirement to "deploy reasonable and appropriate technical measures" including "automated tools" to prevent uploads violating "any law for the time being in force" creates an impossible compliance burden across India's complex legal landscape. The notified rules represent a regression from the already problematic draft that we had called to be withdrawn and instead approach AI based content risks beyond the existing safe harbor framework. We believe AI technologies do need to be regulated however deeply disagree with the approach of the Union Government that has over time expanded its censorship powers against the framework and rights under the Constitution of India. IFF will publish a detailed first-read analysis tomorrow examining the constitutional, technical, and human rights implications of these amendments.