Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
However, they caution that the changes still lack transparency and effective oversight under Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act.
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) recently amended IT rules to ensure that only senior bureaucrats – such as joint secretaries and deputy inspectors general (DIGs) – can issue removal or blocking orders. The move follows criticism from digital platforms and civil society groups about arbitrary and opaque enforcement of online censorship.
Senior advocate Sajan Poovayya said the government’s decision is a “welcome step”, as it limits the number of officers who can issue such orders and demands written justification for each removal. However, he cautioned that India still lacks a comprehensive legal approach to protect internet freedom.
“Expulsions should be rare in a democracy. While the new rules are a step in the right direction, they are not ideal. We need a ground-up reform that protects citizens’ rights and ensures transparency,” Poovayya said.
He said that in the past, even junior officers had issued removal notices, thereby turning the power given for exceptional cases into a tool of encroachment.
Digital rights lawyer Apar Gupta, who represented DigiPub in the Karnataka High Court case, agreed that limiting the list of authorized authorities was positive but warned that privacy remained a major problem.
He said orders issued under the government’s internal “cooperation” platform are not made public – preventing affected users or the press from knowing why specific posts or accounts have been blocked.
“When orders are hidden, there is no sense of checks and balances. The review process also lacks independence, as the same authority that issues the order reviews it. Without public visibility, accountability remains weak,” Gupta said.
He further stressed the need to harmonize removal powers under sections 69A and 79 of the IT Act, arguing that overlapping authorities could lead to excessive or inconsistent censorship.
Rohit Kumar, founding partner of Quantum Hub, expressed similar concerns, saying that neither users nor the public are adequately informed when content is removed.
Kumar said, “If removal orders are not made public, there is no way to measure the extent of online censorship. Some platforms alert users when content is removed, but many do not. Transparency is the key to trust.”
He said review committees responsible for assessing expulsion orders rarely overturn government decisions, raising doubts about the effectiveness of the process.
Read this also Center releases draft rules to tackle deepfakes; Proposal for mandatory labeling of AI-generated content