NWMI and Other Press Bodies Demand Withdrawal of Draft IT Second Amendment Rules, 2026
New Delhi, April 11, 2026: A joint meeting of as many as six journalist bodies took place at the Press Club of India (PCI) in New Delhi today to express deep concern at the draft amendment to the Information Technology Rules 2026, and demanded that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTy) withdraw them in totality.
Several independent journalists and office bearers of the PCI, DIGIPUB, Editors’ Guild of India, Indian Women’s Press Corp, Network of Women in Media and Delhi Union of Journalists spoke at length of the dangers that these amendments pose to Press Freedom and Freedom of Speech.
Speakers underlined several instances of arbitrary takedowns and shutdowns which are already affecting the journalists’ right to work, and that an overlapping of rules are being brought to erect a structure for censorship of news. Extraordinary expansion of discretionary powers granted to the Executive to censor content under Rule 3(4) of the Draft IT Rules, 2026 were highlighted by several speakers.
The meeting took the following resolutions:
RESOLUTION
We hereby:
1) RESOLVE that The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology would withdraw the Draft of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules, 2026 in totality. The worst hit are the independent creators and freelancers who operate solo podcasts, newsletters or have YouTube channels as the compliance framework of the draft IT Rules 2026 is financially terminal for them besides
creating a “chilling effect” where creators may self-censor to avoid any risk of algorithmic misidentification.
2) RESOLVE that we will jointly intensify our demand for the withdrawal of these amendments, which includes canvassing for support with Members of Parliament and all other stakeholders.
3) RESOLVE that the Government of India must strictly follow the procedural safeguards laid down under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act, 2000), before issuing blocking/takedown orders. The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal Vs Union of India, while upholding the constitutional validity of Section 69A, also underlined the need to adhere to these procedural safeguards such as giving written and reasoned blocking order to content
producers and follow the specific protocols instead of issuing arbitrary blocking orders.
4) RESOLVE that the Government of India must withdraw all delegated powers under Section 69A of the Act, 2000, to various agencies, which have completely steamrolled the procedural safeguards under the said section.
5) RESOLVE that the compression of timeline for intermediaries from 36 hours to three hours by amending the IT Rules, 2021, in February 2026, for taking down content must be withdrawn. Such executive diktats border on contempt of the Supreme Court, which read down Section 79 for strengthening safe harbour in Shreya Singhal Vs Union of India.
6) RESOLVE that the Government of India must withdraw Rule 16 of the Information Technology Rules, 2009, which enables blocking of speech without accountability.
7) RESOLVE that the draconian operation of the Sahyog portal, which is functioning without any legislative sanction and in complete violation of the procedural safeguards under Section 79A of the IT Act, 2000, must be halted with immediate effect.
8) RESOLVE that the Government of India must consult all stakeholders including journalist bodies before drafting legislations that curtail Press Freedom under Article 19 (1) (a). Such consultation processes must be initiated prior to publishing draft legislations for public consultations and not post facto.
