In balancing the threats of misinformation and deepfakes against the right to free expression, India's regulatory framework under IT Rules 2021 tilts excessively toward executive discretion. Do you agree? Suggest reforms.

Q. In balancing the threats of misinformation and deepfakes against the right to free expression, India's regulatory framework under IT Rules 2021 tilts excessively toward executive discretion. Do you agree? Suggest reforms. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 shields intermediaries from liability for user-generated content, but only while they comply with the IT Rules, 2021 [1]. That conditionality, more than deepfake regulation itself, concentrates discretion in the executive. I largely agree with the statement.

Yes — discretion is excessive - Blocking without adjudication: Section 69A orders are issued by the Secretary, MeitY under the Blocking Rules, 2009, with the review committee itself drawn from the executive and Rule 16 imposing confidentiality — the creator may never see the reasons [3]. - Safe harbour as leverage: because immunity is conditional on compliance, platforms over-remove lawful criticism rather than risk liability — censorship by proxy [2]. - Diffused, opaque takedowns: the Home Ministry's Sahyog portal lets numerous central and State agencies serve notices under Section 79(3)(b), without any public log of orders [4]. - Executive as arbiter of truth: the 2023 Fact Check Unit let a government body rule on truth about its own affairs; the Bombay High Court struck it down in Kunal Kamra (2024) [6].

But the charge is not absolute - Shreya Singhal (2015) upheld Section 69A for its narrow Article 19(2) grounds and read down Section 79 — intermediaries act only on a court or government order [6]. - The 2025 amendment confines removal directions to Joint Secretary/DIG-rank officers, requires the statutory provision to be specified, and mandates periodic senior-level review [5]. - Deepfake harms are real and fast-moving; labelling duties regulate the artefact, not the opinion [5].

Reforms - Vest blocking review in an independent or judicial body; publish anonymised logs of orders. - Give the originator pre-decisional notice and hearing, not the intermediary alone [3]. - Ring-fence synthetic-media takedowns from journalistic content, applying a proportionality test. - Create a statutory appellate tribunal and mandate periodic parliamentary review of the Rules.

India's problem is procedural rather than conceptual: the grounds in Article 19(2) are legitimate, but the machinery lets one branch be complainant, judge and enforcer. Independent review, reasoned orders and transparency would let the State fight deepfakes credibly while keeping safe harbour a shield for speech rather than a lever against it.

(~335 words)

Sources: 1. IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 — consolidated text, MeitY — safe harbour conditioned on due-diligence compliance 2. PRS Legislative Research — The IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 — conditional immunity and government-led oversight tier 3. IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 — India Code — executive-run blocking procedure, review committee, confidentiality 4. Sahyog Portal, Ministry of Home Affairs — multi-agency takedown notices to intermediaries under the IT Act 5. MeitY notifies IT Rules Amendment, 2025 (effective 1 November 2025) — News Services Division, All India Radio — Joint Secretary/DIG-rank authorisation, reasoned orders, periodic review 6. Judgments portal, Supreme Court and High Courts of India (eSCR/eCourts) — Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) upholding Section 69A and reading down Section 79; Kunal Kamra v. Union of India (Bombay HC, 2024) striking down the Fact Check Unit rule