India has restricted which officials may instruct social media companies to remove online content, following a months-long legal dispute with Elon Musk’s platform X and a recent court defeat for the company in Karnataka.
The government says the change is intended to add “senior-level accountability” and clearer justification to any removal directions.
Under amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, only senior civil servants at joint secretary rank or above, and police officers of deputy inspector general (DIG) rank or higher, are now authorised to issue takedown notices to intermediaries such as X, Meta and YouTube. Previously, a much wider pool of officials could initiate removal requests. The amended provisions take effect on 15 November 2025.
The policy shift comes after X challenged the government’s takedown mechanism this year, arguing that the system enabled excessive censorship and allowed large numbers of officials, including junior police officers, to demand the removal of posts—among them cartoons and satirical content. India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) did not cite the litigation in its announcement, but the timing follows a string of court hearings in which X criticised the breadth of the earlier regime.
On 24 September 2025, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed X’s petition, finding “no merit” in the company’s bid to quash the mechanism and affirming that platforms operating in India must follow local law. X indicated it would appeal. The revised rules arrive less than a month after that judgment.
According to the government, the updated framework is designed to provide “additional safeguards”, including more precise specification of why content is deemed unlawful and periodic review of directions “at a higher level”. MeitY has said the changes will bring greater transparency to the process and require officials to record detailed reasons for any takedown. A secretary-level officer will conduct monthly reviews of the notices issued.
The amendments refine how Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules operates. That rule requires intermediaries to act on “actual knowledge” of unlawful information, either via a court order or a notice from the “appropriate government”. Critics of the former practice argued that the wide authorisation—spread across multiple departments and police units—risked inconsistent applications and over-removal. By concentrating authority in fewer, more senior hands, officials say the system should become more consistent and defensible.
India’s approach to platform governance has tightened in stages since the IT Rules were introduced in 2021 and amended in 2022 and 2023. In parallel with the new limits on who can issue takedown directions, MeitY has also proposed updates aimed at labelling synthetic and AI-generated content such as deepfakes, reflecting wider regulatory attention on manipulated media.
For platforms, the immediate operational change concerns the source and format of takedown communications. Notices originating from below joint-secretary level in civil administration, or below DIG in policing, will no longer be valid under the amended rules. Companies will be expected to verify rank and ensure that any direction contains sufficient particulars to identify allegedly unlawful material and the legal basis for its removal. The government’s monthly review mechanism is intended to check whether such requirements have been met.
The Karnataka case centred on a government system X said enabled large-scale, opaque takedown requests. The court rejected that characterisation and emphasised that Indian constitutional standards—rather than foreign free-speech tests—govern online content regulation domestically. Today’s rule change does not affect the underlying due-diligence obligations on intermediaries, nor does it alter the prohibition on certain categories of unlawful content set out in the IT Act and related rules.
Legal practitioners note that, while the pool of authorised signatories has narrowed, the numbers remain substantial when aggregated across central and state administrations and police forces nationwide. X did not immediately comment on the government’s notification; it previously signalled its intent to continue contesting aspects of India’s takedown framework.
The practical impact will be measured after 15 November, when the amendments come into force. Key indicators will include whether the volume of orders falls, whether the quality and specificity of directions improves, and how the monthly review process is applied in practice. Platforms will meanwhile remain obliged to respond to valid notices and court orders, with users retaining the option to challenge removals through judicial and administrative routes already available under Indian law.
