When stand-up comedian Samay Raina’s show India’s Got Latent was called off and taken down by YouTube over complaints, it was a landmark moment in digital content regulation. But for many creators, it reflected a deeper uncertainty around how online speech is regulated in India and how easily it can be curtailed.
Ravishkumar (name changed), a stand-up comic, recounts losing his social media account after posting political satire on Facebook.
“My previous Instagram account was banned. I had posted a lot of political jokes, one of the jokes ended up on an opposition party’s platform, and then I lost my Instagram and Facebook account,” he tells AIM.
Still, he finds humour in adversity. “When my Instagram account got taken down, the happiest person was my mom, as she didn’t want any legal complaints against me,” he quips.
However, that only encapsulates opaque content moderation in the country, which has been on the rise after the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) enforced the February amendments to the IT Rules. The IT Rules mandate a three-hour takedown deadline for social media platforms to remove AI-generated content, especially deepfakes. As per a MediaNama analysis, there were 40 instances of geo-blocking, account withholding, or content takedowns in March alone.
Now, the latest draft amendments to the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 seek to bring platforms and content creators under the ambit of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s Code of Ethics framework. This raises concerns even as existing provisions like sections 69A and 79(3)(b) of the IT Act continue to shape how content is taken down across platforms.
A Complex System Beyond Section 69A
Public discourse often focuses on Section 69A, which allows the government to block online content on grounds such as national security and public order. However, Pranesh Prakash, Principal Consultant at Anekaanta, a law and policy advisory services firm, points out that the reality is far more layered.
“It’s important to be aware that it’s not only Section 69A that’s being used here. There are two separate provisions—69A and 79(3)b,” he says.
Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act can be invoked to remove safe harbour immunity for online intermediaries if they fail to remove content upon government intervention. This opens the platforms to legal challenges on non-compliance.
“While Section 69A enables formal blocking orders, Section 79(3)(b) operates through indirect pressure on platforms. Under this, those are requests, not orders for takedown. They inform platforms that content may be unlawful and that they may lose protection unless they remove it,” Prakash explains.
This creates a system where platforms often comply without formal legal compulsion. According to a report by The Hindu, India is now among a set of “limited countries” where Facebook and Instagram automatically restrict content at scale.
“While automated forms of takedown may seem operationally efficient, they risk normalising over-removal. Therefore, there is a pressing need for greater transparency in blocking practices to ensure that enforcement does not come at the cost of constitutionally protected speech,” Jhanvi Anam, the Internet Freedom Foundation’s Policy Counsel, said in a statement.
One of the biggest concerns surrounding content takedowns is this lack of transparency. “We don’t have firm numbers as of now. At one point, the official number was 12,000, at another it is 25,000, so clearly there’s been a massive increase,” Prakash notes.
He explains that users rarely know what content has been blocked or why. “There’s been no transparency and no actual way of finding out,” he says.
This opacity makes it difficult for content creators to assess whether their content was justifiably removed.
“No platform will ever mention that your account has been blocked because of political comedy; they just cite guidelines. There are no clear answers or jurisdictions from their end,” Ravishkumar shares.
The lack of clarity in enforcement extends to what qualifies as unlawful content.
Prakash highlights instances where even routine journalism may have been targeted. “An example would be when the government had asked for content from journalistic platforms related to reports around a train incident; it was perfect, factual reporting, which is shocking,” he notes.
Concerns Over New IT Amendments
The proposed changes to the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules now impose the digital media ethics code on even ordinary users posting news content on social media platforms. Also, platforms that fail to comply with takedown directives within a short window risk losing their safe harbour protections.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has warned that the amendments could significantly expand government control over digital speech.
“The proposed amendments are a direct attack on independent journalists using digital platforms and will undermine the public’s right to information,” said Kunal Majumder, Asia-Pacific Programme Coordinator at CPJ. He added that regulating independent journalists like large media corporations could “silence critical reporting and erode the shrinking space for press freedom in India.”
Meanwhile, the Delhi-based non-profit Software Freedom Law Centre has argued that the amendments could disproportionately affect smaller platforms and startups, which may lack the resources to build extensive compliance, legal review, and automated moderation systems.
The broad definition of news and current affairs “could create a ‘censorship by proxy’ effect, where platforms become risk-averse and take down content without meaningful review,” it said in a statement.
The Case for Regulation
Not all experts view these measures as excessive. Aditya Shivkumar, an advocate and entrepreneur who has built Resolve Disputes Online (RDO), argues that provisions like Section 69A are necessary in a digital-first society. “The provision is there to protect national security,” he argues.
He emphasises that freedom of speech is not absolute. “No right to freedom of speech and expression is above national sovereignty,” he adds.
In an era of deepfakes and misinformation, Shivkumar argues that government intervention is essential to maintain public order.
At a Crossroads
As legal provisions, proposed amendments and platform policies increasingly intersect, India’s digital ecosystem finds itself at a critical juncture.
A recent analysis by the Internet Freedom Foundation suggests that the latest amendments signal a deeper shift toward executive-led control over online content. IFF recently noted that the latest tweaks to the draft IT Rules further expand compliance obligations, such as requiring continuous labelling of AI-generated content, and extend them to all users, not just platforms. The organisation also flagged concerns about the consultation process, noting repeated revisions within the same window and limited public access to stakeholder feedback, raising questions about transparency and structured policy-making.
For creators, journalists and users alike, the implications are no longer abstract. As enforcement mechanisms expand and compliance pressures increase, the line between regulation and overreach becomes harder to define. It is also reshaping creative choices.
“Dialogue and political comedy are becoming riskier in India. I still drop or change jokes because of fear of backlash,” Ravishkumar admits.
Your reaction