Senior level accountability and Procedural safeguards in the IT Rules: A summary of the IT Amendment Rules, 2025
by Ms. Amisha Singh (Senior Associate) and Mr. Savan Dhameliya Dhameliya (Associate)
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025, (Amendment Rules) amending the existing Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021). These amendments are intended to strengthen the framework governing the due diligence obligations of intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). In particular, the changes to Rule 3(1)(d) introduce additional safeguards to ensure that the removal or disabling of unlawful content by intermediaries is carried out in a transparent, proportionate and accountable manner. The amended Rules are scheduled to come into effect on 15th November 2025.
According to MeitY, the IT Rules, 2021 were first notified on 25th February 2021 and were subsequently amended on 28th October 2022 and 6th April 2023. These Rules lay down due diligence obligations for intermediaries, including social media intermediaries, with the overarching goal of promoting online safety, security and accountability. Under the existing Rule 3(1)(d), intermediaries are required to remove unlawful information upon receiving actual knowledge either through a court order or a notification from the appropriate government authority. Upon review, MeitY observed the need for additional safeguards to ensure senior-level accountability in decision-making, clearer specification of unlawful content in takedown directions, and periodic review of such directions at a higher administrative level.
SUMMARY OF KEY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
(i) Senior-Level Authorization for Takedown Notices
An intermediary, upon receiving actual knowledge under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, that its platform hosts or transmits unlawful information, relating to sovereignty, public order, decency, defamation, or other prohibited grounds, has to remove or disable access to such content within thirty-six hours. Such actual knowledge will now arise only through a court order or a written, reasoned intimation issued by an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary, or where no such post exists, by a Director or equivalent officer, duly authorized by the appropriate government or its agency. Therefore, where the intimation originates from the police administration, it may be issued only by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, specifically authorized by the appropriate government.
(ii) Reasoned Intimation with Specific Details
Every written intimation must clearly specify the legal basis, statutory provision invoked, nature of the unlawful act, and the exact URL, identifier, or electronic location of the targeted content. This prevents vague or overbroad directives and enhances procedural transparency for intermediaries. This amendment substitutes the earlier general reference to ‘notifications’ with the term ‘reasoned intimation’ in order to align the Rules with the ‘actual knowledge’ requirement under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, thereby providing greater clarity and specificity.
(iii) Periodic Review Mechanism
All takedown intimations will undergo monthly review by an officer not below the rank of Secretary of the appropriate government (such as the Home Secretary or IT Secretary), to ensure that each direction remains necessary, proportionate, and consistent with Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act.
(iv) Ensuring Accountability and User Rights
The earlier practice that allowed junior officials such as sub-inspectors or assistant sub-inspectors to issue takedown notices has been discontinued. The Amendment Rules introduce a clear command hierarchy, curbing arbitrary orders and promoting consistency in enforcement actions.
The amendments are likely to have several important implications. First, they enhance transparency and accountability by clearly specifying who is authorised to issue takedown directions and introducing a monthly review mechanism to maintain checks and balances. Second, they provide greater clarity for intermediaries, as detailed and reasoned intimations offer clear guidance for compliance with the law. Finally, the reforms reinforce safeguards and proportionality, ensuring that actions taken are consistent with the principles of natural justice while maintaining lawful restrictions under the IT Act.
