Understanding the Evolution of Digital Speech Regulation in India
The regulatory landscape for online speech in India is undergoing significant changes. Originally designed as a focused tool to address specific threats to public order, national security, and other constitutionally recognized interests, the framework has expanded to encompass broader executive control over digital expression. Recent data highlights this evolution: from 2018 to October 2023, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued approximately 6,000 content-blocking orders annually under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). This number escalated to around 12,600 in 2024 and further increased to approximately 24,300 in 2025. The Sahyog portal, intended as a cybercrime grievance mechanism, alone generated 2,312 orders across 19 platforms between October 2024 and October 2025.
Revisiting the Constitutional Framework
The assumption that the constitutional validity of Section 69A is settled because the Supreme Court upheld it in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India is misleading. The Court’s decision rested on procedural safeguards that, as documented, have not been effectively implemented. Moreover, proposed amendments to the IT Rules, 2021, released on March 30, 2026, challenge the structural compatibility with the Shreya Singhal ruling. Therefore, the constitutional questions remain open for debate.
Article 19: Balancing Liberty and Collective Interests
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution is often described as balancing individual freedom with collective interests. However, this description understates the structural asymmetry in the Constitution. Article 19(1)(a) not only permits speech but also reflects a commitment to democratic governance. Restrictions under Article 19(2) must be strictly within the enumerated grounds, as established in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras.
Understanding Section 69A
Section 69A of the IT Act, introduced by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, authorizes the Central government to direct intermediaries to block information access if deemed ‘necessary or expedient’ for India’s sovereignty and integrity, defense, security, foreign relations, public order, or to prevent incitement to a cognizable offense. The term ‘expedient’ suggests administrative ease rather than proportionality, potentially exceeding constitutional limits, as it does not appear in Article 19(2).
Procedural Safeguards and Their Limitations
The constitutional validity of Section 69A was conditionally upheld in Shreya Singhal based on procedural safeguards. These include written reasons, a hearing before a Designated Officer, review by the Inter-Departmental Committee, and the availability of judicial review. However, the confidentiality requirement in the Blocking Rules undermines these safeguards by making orders secret, preventing effective review by affected parties.
Implications of Draft IT Rules, 2026
The proposed Rule 3(4) in the draft IT Rules amendments of March 2026 conditions platform immunity on compliance with government-issued advisories, contravening the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Shreya Singhal. This change forces platforms to choose between suppressing speech without statutory grounds or losing legal protection, a choice that undermines free expression.
Reforming the Regulatory Framework
To align with constitutional principles, Section 69A must adhere to proportionality by identifying statutory grounds, establishing factual bases, considering less restrictive alternatives, and assessing proportionality. The confidentiality provision requires statutory amendment to allow affected parties access to information necessary for challenging orders, except in cases where national security is genuinely at risk.
The Path Forward
The draft IT Rules of March 2026 will significantly influence platform governance and citizens’ ability to engage in public discourse. The brief consultation period for these amendments highlights the need for legislative scrutiny and transparency in matters affecting constitutional rights. It is crucial that regulatory changes respect the rule of law and uphold the constitutional guarantees of free speech.
Nancy and Akshat Mehta are Ph.D. Scholars at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
