“...a chilling effect on digital expression and the shrinking of available spaces for democratic participation.”

Indian Government plans to amend its IT Rules...for the worse.

On the 14th of this month, the Committee to Project Journalists (CPJ) raised concerns about the Indian government’s IT Rules (Second Draft Amendments), 2026, legislation. As per the CJP’s Alert:

The draft changes_propose extending a regulatory code of ethics, previously applied only to large streaming platforms and broadcasters, to individual content creators, including independent journalists who cover news and current affairs on social media platforms, according to multiple_ news reports_. If introduced, the amendments would effectively impose publisher-style compliance with government takedown orders._

The government says the amendments, which are open for public consultation until April 29_, are necessary to combat misinformation and deep fakes._

“ The proposed amendments to the Information Technology Rules are a direct attack on independent journalists using digital platforms and will undermine the public’s right to information,” said CPJ’s Asia-Pacific Program Coordinator Kunal Majumder. “Independent digital journalists are now central to India’s news ecosystem and to democratic accountability. Regulating them like large media corporations will silence critical reporting and erode the shrinking space for press freedom in India. The government must withdraw these amendments.”

The concerns raised by the CPJ and Indian outlets such as The Indian Express – linked to in the quote-block above – echo India’s Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), which, in a detailed April 9th Call to Action , called for “the complete and immediate withdrawal of these Draft Amendments”:

While purportedly issued to strengthen compliance, it introduces sweeping changes that would diminish the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and undermine established legal frameworks.

As per the Indian Express, ...t he draft seeks to bring the entire digital news ecosystem — including user-generated “news and current affairs” content — under a unified framework, raising fears that influencers and small creators could be treated like formal publishers.

The Indian Express continues:

A key reason behind why these proposed rules have drawn widespread scrutiny is that they are being seen as the government, particularly the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, looking to gain control over not just content posted, but rather who has posted it.

That concern raises a key question behind the intent of the fresh proposals. If the idea was to target misleading or problematic content on the Internet, the government, at all levels – Centre and states – has the power to block it, a power which has seen overwhelming use in the last few months. Section 69 (A) of the Information Technology (IT) Act empowers the IT Ministry to issue blocking orders, a power which could be extended to multiple ministries, as The Indian Express had earlier reported. Section 79(3)(b) allows several central ministries and state governments to issue blocking orders to platforms.

These new rules, would, according to the Indian Express:

...allow the government to gain a different kind of control, and could also pose a threat to online anonymity. Under the proposal, the government would have the power to seek details of any user posting content related to news and current affairs, even if they are not professional news publishers. A government panel, called the ‘Inter-Departmental Committee’ would be empowered to look at videos or content that has been referred to it by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) and recommend actions such as seeking an apology from the creator in question, directing them to modify parts of their content or take it down altogether.

The aforementioned Call to Action by the SFLC goes into detail in this regard. Rule 3(4), one of the amendments proposed, for instance:

...results in a “ collateral censorship_” effect on free speech rights of users. As held by the Supreme Court in_ Shreya Singhal v. Union of India_, Section 79 is a statutory protection offered to intermediaries, not a conditional privilege that can be withdrawn by executive discretion. If platforms are compelled to obey every executive direction issued at the threat of open-ended liability for user generated content, they will rationally prioritise risk avoidance and compliance, which could result in over-monitoring and preventive over-censorship. To reduce the risk of losing safe harbour and facing civil and criminal liability, platforms would remove and censor lawful speech, particularly those that are_ critical of the government_or_ related interests_. In a country like India where_ press freedom_and_ free speech rights_face systematic erosion, such a rule could be used to silence critical voices and takedown lawful content,_ a pattern we already observe_under existing rules. The result is a chilling effect on digital expression and the shrinking of available spaces for democratic participation._

If you’re Pakistani and any of this sounds a tad familiar, that’s because in January 2025 Pakistan passed very similar amendments to its draconian and ridiculously broad Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act 2025.Amnesty International at the time had said that:

“ The latest amendment to the draconian Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) by the National Assembly will further tighten the government’s grip over Pakistan’s heavily controlled digital landscape, if passed by both houses of Parliament.”

Having spoken with Pakistani activists, Citizen South had learned at the time that despite assurances from the Pakistani Minister for IT, the PECA Amendments had been passed without any input from civil society organisations and constitutional experts, who had not even been given any warning as to its imminent passage. In the case of India, there is hopefully enough time to avoid a similar situation:

If the Draft Amendments come into force, such excess would permeate further, resulting in opaque and arbitrary executive actions that are not communicated to the public, unprecedented amounts of digital censorship of critical voices on online platforms, and an oppressive chilling effect that stifles the free speech of citizens online.

“...the news is something that those in power do not want published” – Pakistani Press Freedom under “unprecedented pressure”.

This was the key message at the heart of the “Ahfaz-ur-Rehman Awards for Courage of Expression and Freedom of the Press”, held in early April at the Arts Council of Pakistan. Named in honour of the late trade unionist, freedom of speech activist and journalist Ahfaz-ur-Rehman, who passed away in 2020, the event hosted panel discussions on the state of the freedom of expression in Pakistan. Those in attendance discussed that “Pakistan is among the countries where journalists face significant risks and there is limited institutional protection available to them.” “I have never experienced such interference and censorship in my life,” remarked one panelist, who also:

referred to recent incidents, including the denial of permission for a press conference of the Baloch Yakjehti Committee at the Karachi Press Club (KPC) and an attack on the Quetta Press Club.

The journalist Wusatullah Khan discussed the 2025 so-called “Gen Z” protests in Nepal:

He said there were restrictions in Pakistan on coverage of that international conflict, which had no connection with Pakistan. Journalists were instructed on what could be reported. Media outlets were asked just to report the events and not to show footage or do an analysis of the uprising. Mr Khan said this reflects the current level of control over the press.

As we discussed in early March, the Pakistani state regularly cracks down errant journalists, such as in the case of the exiled journalists tried in absentia, accused of, according to Reporters sans frontières (RSF):

“inciting” violence, stirring up societal “unrest” and promoting “hostility” towards the armed forces and state institutions.

According to RSF:

Pakistan is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists, with multiple murders each year that are often linked to cases of corruption or illegal trafficking_and which_ go completely unpunished_. Any journalist who crosses the lines dictated by the military’s media wing, the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) — especially during an election period — is at risk of being the target of in-depth surveillance that can lead to abduction and detention for varying lengths of time in the state’s prisons or less official jails. Furthermore, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's leading military intelligence agency, is prepared to silence any critic once and for all._

It is in this context that Pakistani journalists, whether in the country or outside of it, must operate. We see overlaps between journalists, lawyers, activists and others in Pakistan, who advocate freedom of the press and expression, but also run the risk of being harshly penalised by the state.

As the Pakistani digital rights activist Usama Khiliji wrote in the wake of the late January arrest and sentencing of the human rights defenders and lawyers Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chatta – who have remained in detention since late January 2026 on spurious charges, with no legal or administrative relief:

In such an environment, journalists and lawyers are being turned into heroes for simply doing their jobs as that itself has become an act of courage. A parliament that passes laws without deliberation, an executive that arrests its citizens for exercising their right to freedom of speech, and a judiciary that does not protect the rights of citizens that it functions for need a reminder of the notion of fundamental rights and justice.

Sources:

Pakistan: Authorities pass bill with sweeping controls on social media. (2025, January 24). Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/01/pakistan-authorities-pass-bill-with-sweeping-controls-on-social-media/

Asad, M. (2026, April 16). Over 400 lawyers demand relief for Imaan, husband. Dawn. https://www.dawn.com/news/1992121

Barik, S. (2026, April 13). As Centre seeks tighter control over online content, why it may lead to pre-censorship. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/it-rules-amendments-censorship-india-creators-regulation-10633619/

Proposed Indian IT Rules grant government powers to censor independent journalists - Committee to Protect Journalists. (2026, April 14). Committee to Protect Journalists. https://cpj.org/2026/04/proposed-indian-it-rules-grant-government-powers-to-censor-independent-journalists/

CS. (2026, January 25). Pakistan State Arrests, Sentences Human Rights Lawyers for Tweets. Citizen South. https://www.citizensouth.org/pakistan-state-arrests-sentences-human-rights-lawyers-for-tweets/

Khilji, U. (2026, January 2). Criminalising free speech. Dawn. https://www.dawn.com/news/1964527/criminalising-free-speech

Ahfaz, a fearless fighter for free press, passes away – Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF). (2020, April 13). Pakistanpressfoundation.org. https://pakistanpressfoundation.org/ahfaz-a-fearless-fighter-for-free-press-passes-away/

Ranjha, W. A. (2026, April 10). “Press freedom in Pakistan under unprecedented pressure.” Dawn. https://www.dawn.com/news/1990418

Country Profile:Pakistan. Reporters sanfrontières. Rsf.org. https://rsf.org/en/country/pakistan

‌ IT Rules (Second Draft Amendments) 2026: Submit Your Comments Now! (2026, April 9). Software Freedom Law Center, India. https://sflc.in/it-rules-second-draft-amendments-2026-submit-your-comments-now/

‌

‌

‌