Draft IT Rules 2026: Digital Rights, Free Speech & Privacy Concerns

28 Apr 2026

The release of the Draft Information Technology Rules 2026 has raised significant concerns regarding the violation of Freedom of Speech (Article 19) and the Right to Privacy (Article 21).

UPSC Coaching Classes

About Shadow Ban & Censorship

Shadow Ban: A covert form of moderation where a user’s content visibility is restricted without explicit notification.
- The user can still post, but reach, engagement, or discoverability is algorithmically suppressed, often raising concerns of transparency and due process.
Censorship: A direct and explicit restriction or removal of content by governments or platforms based on legal, political, or community guidelines.
- It may be justified on grounds like public order or security, but excessive or vague censorship can threaten freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)).

Legal & Structural Issues

Safe Harbor (Section 79 of IT Act): Platforms lose their immunity if they do not follow government directives to remove content.
Delegated Legislation: Critics argue executives are making rules that exceed the powers granted by the parent Act, disturbing the balance of power.
Chilling Effect: Increased censorship may lead citizens to stop expressing their opinions entirely.

Specific Problematic Rules

Rule 3(4): Bypasses courts, allowing informal government orders to remove content, which contradicts the Shreya Singhal Case (2015).
Rule 8: Places the same level of censorship on ordinary citizens’ social media posts as on large media houses.
Inter-Departmental Committees: These are criticized for acting as censorship tools rather than grievance redressal bodies, often violating Natural Justice by not informing the user of actions taken against them.
Right to Privacy & Data Retention:
- The draft suggests personal data be kept for long periods even after account deletion, hindering the Right to be Forgotten and increasing risks from hackers.

Constitutional Balance & Landmark Cases

Indian Express Newspapers vs UOI (1986): Delegated legislation must remain within the bounds of its parent statute. The Executive cannot grant itself powers the IT Act never intended.
Shreya Singhal vs UOI (2015): Platforms can remove content ONLY on a court order or formal notification under law. Vague laws cause a chilling effect.
K.S. Puttaswamy vs UOI (2017): Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right under Article 21. Mass data retention without proportionality is unconstitutional.

Click to Know UPSC Offline Courses

Key Words for Mains Answers

Chilling Effect on Free Speech: Laws causing self-censorship even without enforcement
Delegated Legislation Crossing Bounds: Rules exceeding authority granted by parent statute
Function Creep: Data collected for X, repurposed for Y (surveillance)
Executive Overreach: Executive assuming powers beyond constitutional limits
Preemptive Censorship: Silencing speech before any harm occurs
Dilution of Safe Harbour: Weakening platform immunity to control speech indirectly