4 min readMay 28, 2026 04:25 PM IST First published on: May 28, 2026 at 04:25 PM ISTBy Divvya Mahepal MadernnaIndia’s digital landscape has long been a site of productive friction — a place where a billion voices coalesce to signal democratic collaboration. However, the recent notification of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026, marks a fundamental shift in the state’s relationship with the internet. By tightening the leash on “intermediaries” and extending the “broadcasting” tag to individual creators, the government isn’t merely regulating the medium, it’s restricting free speech.AdvertisementAt the heart of the controversy is the new “three-hour rule”. Under these amendments, social media platforms — the intermediaries we rely on for news and connection — must remove “unlawful” content within just 180 minutes of receiving a government notice. The shrinking of the compliance window from 36 hours to 180 minutes could lead to the death of human evaluation. For platforms like Meta or X that manage millions of uploads per minute, a “three-hour deadline” makes human review impossible. No matter how large, no human team can accurately judge the legality of a post in such a short window. To safeguard their “safe harbour” immunity (the legal shield that protects platforms from being sued for what their users post), these companies will be forced to rely on AI-driven filters, which are notoriously poor at detecting nuance, satire, or regional irony. A political caricature or a stinging critique of a local official, which might be perfectly legal under the reasonable restrictions of Article 19(2), could be flagged by a bot as “incitement”.Also Read | IT rules have made the internet less freePerhaps another, more insidious, part of the 2026 framework is the government’s attempt to blur the line between a citizen and a corporation. The proposed law aims to treat high-reach influencers and independent creators as “digital news broadcasters”. A professional newsroom has legal departments to navigate complex government codes. An independent creator or a civic-minded citizen does not. When citizens realise that every viral opinion risks being subjected to the same legal scrutiny as a big media house, the instinct to self-censor becomes overwhelming. This chilling effect doesn’t just stop fake news; it chokes independent thought.The introduction of the Sahyog Portal — an automated government digital platform that aims to rapidly remove “unlawful” content from the internet — adds to the concerns. Historically, such takedown orders were subject to a centralised process and the scrutiny of high-level committees. Now, a local police officer’s interpretation of “public mischief” or “offensive content” can trigger a national blackout of a post. “Truth” could be determined by local sensitivities rather than constitutional standards, transforming the internet from a national forum of ideas into a minefield of regional red lines.AdvertisementThe government’s primary justification behind this amendment is valid. Deepfakes are a real threat to our social fabric and misinformation can have deadly consequences. However, the solution cannot be built on fear. True safety online comes from transparency, digital literacy, and judicial oversight.you may likeIf the “three-hour rule” becomes the norm, we are signalling that the state neither trusts its citizens to deliberate nor its judiciary to adjudicate. The internet’s greatest value to India was its ability to give the marginalised a voice. If that voice can be silenced by a bot, our digital arena will become nothing more than a government-approved echo chamber.The writer is national secretary, All India Congress Committee, co-incharge of Jammu and Kashmir