India’s new digital rules tighten the noose on freedom of speech

The Indian government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has been on mission to crack down on online dissent.

Several handles on social media platforms have been blocked in India in response to "legal demands" from the ministry of electronics and information technology. No explanation has been provided for the action.

While there are no official numbers on how many posts had been blocked, the restrictions are so widespread that one user complained on X that "every tenth post" had been restricted.

Many of the accounts and posts had one thing in common – they were critical of the Modi government. Journalists, activists and news outlets were predictably targeted, but so were a spate of satirical posts from comedians, cartoonists and writers. One blocked reel by comedian Pulkit Mani lampooned Modi’s disproportionate delight and apparent lack of gravitas when meeting foreign leaders; others depicted him wearing Israel's Knesset medal – he was its first recipient – alongside an Indian man wearing a cooking gas cylinder around his neck.

Modi’s reaction to the war in the Middle east – criticised by many feeling the effects of the gas shortage – may have spurred the proliferation of memes and subsequently prompted the mass censorship.

In the last few weeks, Indian authorities have introduced a new set of digital rules and amendments tucked into existing laws that could tighten the noose on India’s freedom of speech and right to expression.

On March 30, the electronics and information technology (IT) ministry published amendments to the Information Technology Act of 2021 that would essentially decentralise the government's authority to block online content. Under the new proposal, "takedown powers" will be granted to several ministries – including those for defence, home affairs, foreign affairs, and information and broadcasting. Such censorship authority was previously only in the hands of the IT ministry.

India has already been criticised for increasing digital authoritarianism. During escalating violence between India and Pakistan last year, the Indian government ordered X to block 2,355 accounts in the country, including international news outlets like Reuters. According to transparency reports, more than 28,000 URLs or web links were blocked in 2024.

Public records and data from advocacy groups show hundreds of government-initiated content removal requests and dozens of nationwide internet shutdowns, especially during protests or political gatherings. News sites like The Kashmir Walla and Gaon Savera have been blocked on "security grounds" and numerous smaller news outlets and YouTube channels critical of the government have faced pressure to stick to the pro-government line or be blocked.

Faster and more efficient censorship

The amendments to existing laws will make the censorship process faster and more efficient.

Rights advocacy groups have pushed for an immediate rollback – however, it is likely that the new rules will enter into force, as expected, in the next 15 days.

Prateek Waghre, a fellow with Tech Policy Press and former executive director of digital rights organisation Internet Freedom Foundation, says that the scope of the new rules is wider than anything before.

“I am worried. What stands out the most is the potential expansion of power, and the ability to target current affairs analyses or news. Anything anyone says on the internet is subject to scrutiny now.”

Waghre adds that even though the new rules were introduced to be "clarificatory and procedural", slipped into existing laws as "advisories", they are in fact legally enforceable.

Read moreBrothers-in-arms: How Modi and Netanyahu are bringing India and Israel closer together

One of the most controversial points in the new rules is the mandatory time limit for social media companies to remove unlawful material. If the government flags content, platforms must have it removed in just three – sometimes two – hours without having to give any kind of notice to the creator.

Waghre says the new three-hour rule is a contrast to the earlier deadline of 36-hours. “There isn’t enough time for platforms to figure out the legality of a post. They’re likely to just remove content without thinking about it because of the tight timeline.”

Nikhil Pahwa, journalist, digital rights activist and founder of tech-focused news platform MediaNama, stresses the arbitrary decision-making, adding that there is no transparency in how online content will be policed. “Someone in some government ministry will wake up one morning, see a tweet or YouTube video they don’t like and take an order to remove it. There’s no rule for releasing that information," Pawah said.

There is also no way to know which ministry flagged the content or why.

Waghre worries that a new opacity will lead to legal content – like satirical cartoons and journalism – being conflated with illegal activity, where restrictions are legitimate.

“There’s a lot of content being taken down right now, and we can’t differentiate between what’s legitimately problematic – and some of it may be, like child pornography or misinformation – or what is just someone’s parody, because the government won’t tell us.”

Creating an ‘Infrastructure of censorship’

Modi has been largely intolerant of any kind of criticism, despite his insistence otherwise.

Pahwa says that the new laws are an added element in the creation of “an infrastructure of censorship in India”.

“It is systemic and pervasive, and it has been pieced together bit by bit without us realising,” he said.

The new amendments will also place social media accounts, online video creators and streaming platforms under the watchful eye of India’s ministry of information and broadcasting – essentially placing the same scrutiny on social media creators as journalists.

This means that if online content creators – which could be anyone in India – do not comply with the government’s laws for journalists, they will be subject to the same punitive actions.

Read morePakistan-Afghanistan 'open war': How and why we got here

The ministry tried to pass a similar bill 2024 and failed. By introducing amendments to existing law, the ministry found another way to push through the new rules.

Pahwa is concerned because much of independent Indian investigation and commentary has, in the last decade, shifted to social media platforms amid increased government pressure and as more platforms are being bought out by politically aligned entities and billionaire donors.

“We’ve seen a radical shift of traditional journalism to YouTube and social media, and they’ve so far been free from the ministry of information and broadcasting. That’s going to change drastically.”

More worrying is that these new rules are just one more element in a litany of laws and regulations muffling free speech and taking punitive action against dissenters in India, both online and off.

Pahwa was recently at a discussion on regulating children's access to social media where several members of the government spoke.

“I was listening to one official say that the internet is basically public infrastructure. So the government should be the one to control access to that infrastructure,” he said.

“I found it striking because the idea of public accessibility wasn’t rights-focused – it was control-focused. Digital freedom is not public infrastructure; it’s an enabler of our fundamental rights."

He says the new set of laws is just the latest – and likely not the last – in a pervasive crackdown on freedom of speech. "People are treating these rules as a finality; I’m treating it as a checkpoint."