Aishani Partners
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025 -Salient Features
January 20, 2026
I. Background
On October 22nd, 2025, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (the “Rules”) under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (the “Act”) were amended to refine the due diligence obligations for intermediaries as a condition for availing the exemption from liability under Section 79 of the Act. Rule 3 sets out such due diligence obligations.
Rule 3(1)(d)[i] governs the obligation of intermediaries to remove or disable access to certain unlawful information[ii] upon acquiring “actual knowledge” under Section 79(3)(b) of the Act. Such “actual knowledge” is presumed to be given to the intermediaries through a competent court’s order (which was already present in the Rule earlier) or by a “reasoned intimation” from an officer authorised by the Government for the purpose of issuing such intimation (newly-added in the Rule).
It is pertinent to highlight that the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India[iii] supported the need that intermediaries are required to act only upon receipt of a court order or a lawful direction issued by the Government, and that such direction must conform to the grounds enumerated under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The 2025 amendment of Rule 3(1)(d) operationalises this requirement by prescribing that such directions or a reasoned intimation be issued by appropriate authorities or senior officers and such intimation should identify the specific unlawful content”.
The October 2025 Amendment substituted Rule 3(1)(d) with effect from 15 November 2025[iv]. The statutory differences between the pre-amendment and post-amendment positions are set out in the comparative table below:
| Aspect | Rule 3(1)(d) before amendment | Rule 3(1)(d) after amendment (w.e.f. 15.11.2025) |
| Trigger for obligation (“actual knowledge”) | “upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an order by a court of competent jurisdiction or on being notified by the Appropriate Government or its agency under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Act” | “Upon receiving the actual knowledge under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Act… and such actual knowledge shall arise only in the following manner, namely:— (i) by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction; or (ii) a reasoned intimation, in writing” |
| Form of Government communication | “notified by the Appropriate Government or its agency” | “a reasoned intimation, in writing” |
| Authority issuing takedown direction | “Appropriate Government or its agency” (no rank specified) | “issued by an officer authorised… being not below the rank of Joint Secretary or an officer equivalent in rank… and, in the case of police authorities… not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG)” |
| Requirement of reasoning | No requirement | “a reasoned intimation, in writing” |
| Specification of content | No requirement to specify URL or electronic location | “clearly specifying the legal basis and statutory provision invoked, the nature of the unlawful act, and the specific uniform resource locator (URL), identifier or other electronic location of the information” |
| Time limit for takedown | as early as possible, but in no case later than thirty-six hours” (contained in the second proviso) | “remove or disable access to such information within thirty-six hours of the receipt of such actual knowledge” (contained in the main clause) |
| Review mechanism | No review mechanism specified | “all such intimations shall be subject to periodic review… once in every month” |
| Reviewing authority | Not specified | “an officer not below the rank of the Secretary of the concerned Appropriate Government” |
| Voluntary removal protection | Explicit protection under third proviso | Not altered by the amendment |
II. Impact on Intermediaries
The amendment significantly recalibrates the compliance obligations of internet intermediaries by narrowing and clearly defining the circumstances in which “actual knowledge” under Section 79(3)(b) of the Act is deemed to arise. Intermediaries are now required to act only upon receipt of a procedurally valid court order or a reasoned written intimation issued by a duly authorised senior officer. This change reduces uncertainty arising from informal or vague notifications and provides greater legal clarity in determining when takedown obligations are triggered.
Operationally, intermediaries must strengthen internal compliance mechanisms to verify the competence and authorisation of issuing authorities, ensure that intimations meet statutory requirements of reasoning and content specificity, and act within the prescribed thirty-six-hour timeframe. The requirement of precise identification of content, including URLs or electronic identifiers, enables more targeted removals and reduces the risk of excessive or collateral takedowns of lawful content. From a liability perspective, the amendment strengthens intermediaries’ ability to invoke safe-harbour protection under Section 79 by enabling demonstrable good-faith compliance with clearly articulated statutory conditions.
III. Impact on Government and Enforcement Authorities
For government authorities, the amendment introduces structured procedural discipline in the exercise of takedown powers. The requirement that intimations be issued only by officers of a prescribed senior rank, be reasoned in writing, and be subject to periodic review imposes institutional accountability and reduces scope for arbitrary or ad hoc directions. The monthly review by a Secretary-level officer ensures consistent internal checks within the executive framework while preserving the State’s ability to act against unlawful online content.
IV. Impact on Users and Content Creators
The amended framework indirectly enhances procedural safeguards for users and content creators by increasing transparency in the content removal process. The requirement of reasoned, content-specific takedown directions and periodic review reduces the likelihood of arbitrary or indefinite restrictions on online expression. By embedding proportionality and accountability into the takedown mechanism, the amendment aligns content regulation more closely with constitutional principles of free speech and natural justice, while continuing to permit lawful restrictions in the interests specified under the Act.
Contributed by Aditi Verma Thakur and Akash Sajan
(with support from intern B. Dhanusri)
[i] Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, r. 3(1)(d) (India), as amended by Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025, G.S.R. 775(E) (Oct. 22, 2025) (effective Nov. 15, 2025).
[ii] Information in relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; decency or morality; in relation to contempt of court; defamation; incitement to an offence relating to the above, or any information which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force. [As per newly-inserted Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Intermediary Rules 2021) (India)]
[iii] AIR 2015 SC 1523; Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 167 OF 2012
[iv] IT Intermediary Rules r. 3(1)(d) (India).