ON OCTOBER 22, THE MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (‘MeitY’), through the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025 (‘Draft Amendment’), has initiated an intervention in the governance of online content, by ostensibly aiming to mitigate the societal harms of “deepfakes” and other forms of “synthetically generated information”. MeitY has invited comments and suggestions on the Draft Amendment, and the consultation window remains open at the time of writing.
The 2025 Amendments do not merely add a new layer of due diligence for online platforms, they fundamentally alter the legal architecture of intermediary liability that has underpinned the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’ ) so far. By imposing proactive and automated verification of user-generated content, the Draft Amendment effectively skirts the rationale behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), by altering the role of Significant Social Media Intermediaries (‘SSMIs’) from passive conduits into active enforcers and arbiters of authenticity. This imposes what may be seen as an excessive burden which exceeds the mandate of Section 79 of the Act.
In the first part, I examine the Draft Amendment, outlining the obligations it imposes. In the second part, look at its doctrinal conflict with the intermediary liability and safe harbour regime under Section 79 of the IT Act. Finally, in the last part, I outline how the European Union’s (‘EU’) framework showcases a potential alternative, which sits better with the safe harbour regime, and emphasise the underlying principles that distinguish it from India’s proposed intermediary-centric model.
