C&M E-Alert: MeitY Notifies the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media and Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025

On 22^nd October 2025, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”) notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025 (“IT Rules 2025”), amending the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“IT Rules 2021”) with respect to the takedown or removal of unlawful content by intermediaries (including social media intermediaries, significant social media intermediaries, and online gaming intermediaries). The IT Rules 2025 takes effect from 15^th November 2025.

In essence, the IT Rules 2025 aims to introduce a structured and accountable framework for takedown of unlawful content. By clearly defining the rank and authorisation of officers empowered to issue takedown orders, mandating written and reasoned intimations, and instituting a monthly governmental review of such orders, the IT Rules 2025 aim to balance regulatory oversight with procedural safeguards.

As per the PIB notification on the IT Rules, 2025, the amendment seeks to strengthen the due diligence framework under the IT Rules, 2021 by enhancing transparency, accountability, and proportionality in the process of issuing takedown orders for unlawful content to intermediaries.

KEY AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY THE IT RULES 2025

• Designation of Authorised Officers for Takedown Orders: Previously, under the IT Rules 2021, an intermediary was required to takedown unlawful content (such as content threatening national security, public order, or decency, or amounting to defamation or contempt of court) upon receiving “actual knowledge” that such unlawful content existed. For the purposes of determining “actual knowledge,” the IT Rules 2021 specified that an intermediary would be deemed to have such knowledge only upon receiving a court order or a notification/order from appropriate government or its agency under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act 2000 (“IT Act”) i.e., either the Union or State Government.  

  Considering the broad interpretation of IT Rules 2021, any department or agency of the Union or State Government could issue such a takedown order, with no prescribed rank or designation for the issuing officer. This often made it difficult to determine whether a particular officer was duly authorised to issue such an order, leading to uncertainty in assessing the validity of takedown orders. Additionally, this often resulted in inconsistency in the form and content of takedown orders, including the absence of detailed reasoning or specific identification of the unlawful content sought to be removed.

  To overcome these issues and to achieve consistency by streamlining the manner and specifically identifying the designated authorised officers who can issue an order for the takedown of unlawful content, IT Rules 2025 has introduced below amendments:

  • by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction; or

  • by a intimation, by an officer who shall be an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary, a Director or an officer equivalent in rank, to the Government of India or to the State Government, or, if such notification is issued by the police, not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, who, in each case, is authorised specifically for the purpose of issuing such intimation by the appropriate government or its agency.

This amendment brings accountability to the process, ensuring that only authorised officers can issue such takedown orders, addressing the ambiguity that existed under the 2021 framework.

• Reasoned Intimation: The IT Rules 2025 prescribes that any such takedown order must be a “reasoned intimation” and in “writing” clearly specifying the legal basis and statutory provision invoked, the nature of the unlawful act, and the specific uniform resource locator, identified or other electronic location of the information required to be removed or disabled.

  This new amendment thereby enhances transparency by ensuring that intermediaries are informed of the reasons and legal basis for each takedown order. This allows intermediaries to assess the validity of such orders and action them accordingly to ensure proper compliance and, where considered unjustified, to seek appropriate legal recourse.

  
  

• Introduction of Periodic Review: Following the ambiguity created by the IT Rules 2021 and the various concerns regarding legitimacy of such takedown orders raised by various stakeholders, the IT Rules 2025 introduces and mandates “period reviews” of such takedown orders.  Going forward, each takedown order is required to be reviewed on a monthly basis by a secretary-rank officer in the appropriate government to ensure that all such orders are necessary, proportionate, and consistent with the provisions of the IT Act.

  
  

• Omission of Voluntary Takedown Protection: Section 79 of the IT Act provides safe harbour protection to intermediaries i.e., qualified immunity to intermediaries to protect it from liability arising from hosting third-party content subject to compliance with the due diligence requirements set out under the IT Act and the IT Rules 2021.

  
  

  Previously, the proviso to Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021 protected intermediaries from losing their safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, if an intermediary removed or disabled access to content voluntarily, or in response to user grievances. In simple terms, an intermediary could take down unlawful content without losing their safe harbour protection. The IT Rules, 2025 omit this proviso, thereby taking away the safe harbour protection previously available to intermediaries in cases of voluntary content removal and removal of content pursuant to user grievances.

ANALYSIS

• The IT Rules, 2025 bring procedural clarity by specifying the rank of officers authorised to issue takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, addressing the ambiguity that existed under the 2021 framework. The requirement for such notifications to be reasoned and in writing provides transparency and accountability for both authorised personnels issuing such takedown orders as well as addresses. Further, the introduction of periodic review adds an additional oversight layer to ensure that takedown orders remain necessary, proportionate, and consistent with law. However, the omission of the safe-harbour proviso may create legal uncertainty and potential liability exposure for intermediaries undertaking voluntary and user grievance-based takedowns, likely discouraging proactive moderation and increasing reliance on formal government directions.

*********

Should you have any queries or comments on this alert please visit our LinkedIn page. You may also contact the authors below.