Journalist Bodies Demand Withdrawal of Draft IT Rules 2026

Last Updated on April 12, 2026 12:29 am by INDIAN AWAAZ

Javed Akhtar / New Delhi

Several leading journalist bodies on Saturday voiced strong concern over the proposed amendments to the Information Technology Rules 2026, warning that the changes could undermine press freedom and restrict the free flow of information in the country.

The concerns were raised during a joint meeting held at the Press Club of India in New Delhi, where representatives of six major journalist organisations deliberated on the implications of the proposed rules. Participants included members and office bearers from the Press Club of India, DIGIPUB, Editors’ Guild of India, Indian Women’s Press Corps, Network of Women in Media, and the Delhi Union of Journalists.

Speakers at the meeting expressed apprehension that the draft amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2026 could expand executive powers in regulating digital content, potentially opening the door to censorship. Several participants highlighted existing cases of arbitrary content takedowns and shutdowns that they said were already affecting journalists’ ability to work freely.

According to speakers, the proposed amendments—particularly provisions under Rule 3(4)—could significantly increase discretionary authority granted to government agencies to block or remove online content. They argued that such powers, if implemented without adequate safeguards, could undermine constitutional protections related to freedom of speech and expression.

Participants also expressed concern about the impact of the rules on independent digital creators, freelancers and small media platforms. Many journalists noted that individuals running independent podcasts, newsletters or YouTube channels may find it financially difficult to comply with the regulatory framework outlined in the draft rules.

During the discussion, speakers warned that the compliance requirements and algorithm-driven content monitoring mechanisms could create what they described as a “chilling effect,” prompting journalists and creators to censor themselves to avoid potential penalties or misidentification by automated systems.

The meeting concluded with a collective call for the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to withdraw the draft amendments entirely and initiate broader consultations with stakeholders before introducing regulations affecting digital media and journalism.

Participants also emphasised the importance of adhering strictly to procedural safeguards established under the Information Technology Act and previous Supreme Court judgments. They stressed that any measures involving blocking or takedown of online content must follow transparent procedures and provide clear written orders to content creators.

The gathering resolved to intensify advocacy efforts in the coming weeks, including engaging Members of Parliament and other stakeholders, to press for reconsideration of the proposed rules and to safeguard press freedom in the digital age.

RESOLUTION (As Released by PCI )

We hereby:

1. RESOLVE that The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology would withdraw the Draft of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules, 2026 in totality. The worst hit are the independent creators and freelancers who operate solo podcasts, newsletters or have YouTube channels as the compliance framework of the draft IT Rules 2026 is financially terminal for them besides creating a “chilling effect” where creators may self-censor to avoid any risk of algorithmic misidentification.
2. RESOLVE that we will jointly intensify our demand for the withdrawal of these amendments, which includes canvassing for support with Members of Parliament and all other stakeholders.
3. RESOLVE that the Government of India must strictly follow the procedural safeguards laid down under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act, 2000), before issuing blocking/takedown orders. The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal Vs Union of India, while upholding the constitutional validity of Section 69A, also underlined the need to adhere to these procedural safeguards such as giving written and reasoned blocking order to content producers and follow the specific protocols instead of issuing arbitrary blocking orders.
4. RESOLVE that the Government of India must withdraw all delegated powers under Section 69A of the Act, 2000, to various agencies, which have completely steamrolled the procedural safeguards under the said section.
5. RESOLVE that the compression of timeline for intermediaries from 36 hours to three hours by amending the IT Rules, 2021, in February 2026, for taking down content must be withdrawn. Such executive diktats border on contempt of the Supreme Court, which read down Section 79 for strengthening safe harbour in Shreya Singhal Vs Union of India.
6. RESOLVE that the Government of India must withdraw Rule 16 of the Information Technology Rules, 2009, which enables blocking of speech without accountability.
7. RESOLVE that the draconian operation of the Sahyog portal, which is functioning without any legislative sanction and in complete violation of the procedural safeguards under Section 79A of the IT Act, 2000, must be halted with immediate effect.
8. RESOLVE that the Government of India must consult all stakeholders including journalist bodies before drafting legislations that curtail Press Freedom under Article 19 (1) (a). Such consultation processes must be initiated prior to publishing draft legislations for public consultations and not post facto.