Navigating India’s Recent IT Amendments: Balancing Platform Accountability and Digital Freedom

Introduction

India’s digital landscape is witnessing rapid expansion, leaving a profound impact on various aspects of society. The growth comes with multiple challenges, necessitating the need for updated laws and regulations. The Government of India notified a recent amendment on 22 October, 2025 to the Information Technology Rules, 2021. This amendment focuses on addressing challenges from synthetically generated content, including deepfakes and misinformation. It defines synthetically generated information and also attempts to provide a balance between competing rights, such as privacy and freedom of expression, accountability, and transparency, through a governance layer that includes a regulatory sandbox and an AI Ethics Board.[1]

Key Provisions and Amendments

The amendment introduces several important provisions within the framework of the IT Rules, 2021, specifically targeting SGC. It adds some essential clauses to the IT Rules, 2021 framework.[2]

Contents that have been artificially modified or created using AI or algorithms and are intended to look authentic are referred to as “synthetically generated information”.[3]

New Rule 4(1A) imposed additional obligations on SSMIs, including the need to:

(i)     Get a user declaration regarding whether the uploaded data is SGI,[4]

(ii)   Implement appropriate verification procedures and,

(iii)  Make sure SGI is properly labelled or has notices indicating its synthetic nature.

Issue

The duties of Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs) for SGI are the subject of Rule 4. It is an ambiguous standard of “reasonable and proportionate technical measures” to confirm user declarations and identify synthetic content, which is a major problem. [5]This puts platforms, especially smaller ones with fewer resources, at risk of liability, implementation uncertainty, and possible over-censorship[6]. Among the flaws are unclear timeframes, imprecise verification thresholds, and inadequate protections for private or borderline content. Some drawbacks include the potential for stifling free speech, privacy concerns arising from extensive monitoring, and uneven enforcement on the platform.[7]

Solution

Inspiration for India is drawn from the European Union’s DSA (Digital Services Act), striking an innovative and accountable balance based on clear, proportionate obligations and strong user rights protections.

The DSA of the EU has mandated risk-based due diligence, transparency in moderation, and an independent audit model, which India can look toward.[8] Rule 4 should develop into a rights-respecting framework: one with tiered obligations, time-bound verification, and appeal mechanisms.[9] Let India lead, not control, but by crafting a digital charter-one that empowers users, protects privacy, and fosters innovation without fear.

Conclusion

India’s evolving digital governance has little room for ambiguity; precision is the key. The present framework of Rule 4 invites overreach and uneven application, especially with respect to smaller platforms. Based on the pattern adopted in the EU’s Digital Services Act, India should operate a rights-based, differentiated approach supported by clear verification benchmarks, time-bound obligations, and strong redressal mechanisms. This transformation will balance innovation with accountability, so that synthetic content is handled transparently, without compromising privacy or free speech. A refined Rule 4 can be the bedrock of India’s ethical, inclusive, and resilient digital future.

---

This blog has been authored by Abhigya Modi, a student at Rajiv Gandhi National law university of Punjab.

---

REFRENCES

[1] Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, ‘Explanatory Note: Proposed Amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021’ (22 October 2025)<https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/10/8e40cdd134cd92dd783a37556428c370.pdf> accessed 5 November 2025.

[2] AZB Partners, Aparijita Rana and Agrawal S, “Meity Proposes New Media Proposing Obligations under Intermediary Rules” (AZB Partners, October 29, 2025) <https://www.azbpartners.com/bank/meity-proposes-new-media-labelling-obligations-under-intermediary-rules/> accessed 5 November 2025

[3] “2025 IT Rules Amendment: Regulating AI Generated Information” (S.S. Rana & Co., October 27, 2025) <https://ssrana.in/articles/2025-it-rules-amendment-regulating-synthetically-generated-information-in-indias-ai-and-privacy-landscape/> accessed 4 November 2025

[4] “India’s Proposed New Draft Rules Regulating Synthetic Media” (AZB, October 28, 2025) <https://www.azbpartners.com/bank/indias-proposed-new-draft-rules-regulating-synthetic-media/> accessed 6 November 2025

[5]Sharma S, “‘AI Label’ Rule Triggers Unease, Govt Extends Deadline for Feedback” Hindustan Times (November 7, 2025)<https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ai-label-rule-triggers-unease-govt-extends-deadline-for-feedback-101762455282202.html> accessed 5 November 2025

[6]Chopra S and Pande S, “The Boundaries of Rule Making: Reassessing the Proposed IT Rules Amendment 2025” (Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news, November 1, 2025) accessed 6 November 2025.

[7]“IFF Issues Initial Statement on India’s Draft Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2025” CADE – Civil Society Alliances for Digital Empowerment <https://cadeproject.org/updates/iff-issues-initial-statement-on-indias-draft-information-technology-amendment-rules-2025> accessed 6 November 2025.

[8] “The Digital Services Act” (Shaping Europe’s digital future) <https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act> accessed on 7 November 2025

[9] “EU AI Act: First Regulation on Artificial Intelligence” (Topics | European Parliament) <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence> accessed 7 November 2025